Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

War Widows' Pensions

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of claims for war widows' pensions are successful (a) on initial application and (b) on appeal.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): About 46 per cent. of claims for war widows pensions are successful on initial application. Some 19 per cent. of cases which go to appeal are successful.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that incomplete records and the passage of time make it increasingly difficult to prove or disprove that war service has contributed to the death of a pensioner? Many widows as well as their husbands suffer for many years and find it extremely difficult. Is not it time that we took a more generous approach to widows whose husbands suffered as a result of giving service to the country during the war?

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind and I have every sympathy with the lady—he will know that her case is to go to

appeal. He seems to be asking about automatic entitlement to a war widow's pension. The basic condition for the award of a war widow's pension must be that the husband's death was due to or substantially hastened by service in the armed forces. There must be that causal connection or the rates of the war widow's pension could not be justified.

Disabled People

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a further statement on the implementation of proposals in "The Way Ahead" to benefit disabled people who want to achieve independence through working.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Detailed work is progressing on our proposal in "The Way Ahead" to introduce a new benefit, disability employment credit, which will make it easier for disabled people to work. We intend to introduce legislation in time to bring the new benefit into effect from April 1992.

Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new benefit will give enormous new opportunities to disabled people to join the community in the fullest sense? Does he also agree that three elements are necessary to make that possible? The first is training—will he talk to his hon. Friends about that? Secondly, employers should display a degree of patience to enable people to settle in to the work. Thirdly, a safety net should always be provided so that those who try to go out to work but find that it is not possible will always be able to return to receiving the full benefits to which they were previously entitled.

Mr. Scott: I agree very much with the points that my hon. Friend has made. We shall be aiding the provision of a safety net by enabling those on invalidity benefit before they go into work, which attracts the disability employment credit, to retain their underlying entitlement to that benefit. Therefore, they will not have to requalify for it if by chance they are unable to sustain the job. I believe that the disability employment credit will be an important encouragement to people to go into work. It


will reinforce the emerging demographic pattern, which I believe will compel employers to look beyond the disabilities that they see to the abilities that frequently lie behind them.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Minister aware that there is great concern among people with disabilities and their carers about the Government's attitude to the independent living fund? Will he therefore seek to persuade the Treasury that it is extremely important that people with disabilities should not experience poverty and that poverty and disability should not be synonymous?

Mr. Scott: As the hon. Gentleman will recall, I was able to announce an extra £8 million for the independent living fund and I am in discussion with the trustees of the fund about its future.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Does the Minister still expect to save £10 million by introducing the new credit as I was told in a parliamentary reply? Is he aware of the concern of Nicole Davoud and her working group on the credit that it should not exclude people who can work only for less than 24 hours per week, that it should not be means tested like family credit, and that the maximum allowable income should not restrict disabled people to lower-paid work? What assurances can the Minister give to the working group on those important issues?

Mr. Scott: I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's right—indeed, duty—to press me on those matters, but we have exchanged views on it before and he knows as well as I do that we are still working on the details of the benefit. We estimate that it will cost about £80 million to help 50,000 disabled people to obtain employment. The right hon. Gentleman should recognise that that is an important step in the right direction.

Lone Parents

Ms. Short: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much a lone parent with two children would have to earn to be better off in work than on benefits, making an appropriate assumption about the costs of child care.

Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much a lone parent with two children would have to earn to be better off in work than on benefits, making an appropriate assumption about the costs of child care.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): It is not possible to generalise in the way that the questions seek as individual circumstances vary so widely and lone parents' income in work will also depend on whether maintenance is paid. The benefit system does, however, recognise that lone parents who work may face additional costs of various kinds, and the earnings disregard for such lone parents on housing benefit is to be increased from £15 to £25 a week in October.

Ms. Short: First, will the Secretary of State apologise, on behalf of the chair of the Conservative party, to lone parents throughout the country who are deeply hurt by the suggestion that their children are likely to become criminals and are taking part in a wrecking of society? Secondly, do the Government understand that many lone parents would love to work but cannot do so because of

the costs of child care? Will he reconsider the Government's decision to prevent lone parents offsetting the costs of child care against benefit because the Government are thus trapping large numbers of them into poverty and into living on benefits when they would like to be independent and give a better life to their children?

Mr Newton: With regard to the first part of the hon. Lady's question, I do not accept—nor do I think that my right hon. Friend would accept—the interpretation that the hon. Lady has placed on his remarks. We all share a common concern to improve the position of lone parents. My right hon. Friend was doing no more than talk about some of the difficulties that they and their families may face, which we are all concerned to tackle.
With regard to the second part of the hon. Lady's question, I have already referred to one significant improvement that we are making in the in-work earnings disregard. She will be aware that a significant number of lone parent families are helped by family credit, which is very much directed at them—about a third of those on family credit are lone parents. We shall continue to try to improve the benefits system, not least to try to improve the collection of maintenance, which provides portable income for those who receive benefit and then gain work. That will make a significant contribution to the problem.

Mrs. Mahon: The Minister will be aware that many lone parents will be disappointed with that answer. Will he reconsider taking the cost of child care into account? I add my support to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) about the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). Will the Minister also send a message to the Prime Minister, and point out to her that the majority of lone parents have not had the access to wealth that she had when bringing up children?

Mr Newton: Undoubtedly, many lone parents are in difficult circumstances. That is why we have made a number of improvements in the benefit system which are designed to help them. Some have already come into effect. Another, to which I have referred, will come into effect in October. Perhaps the biggest single weakness in our system at present is the lack of effective collection of maintenance to which we are directing close attention.

Mr. Favell: Labour Members talk as though the money to provide child care for lone parents will drop out of the sky. It has to be paid for by other taxpayers—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about directors' pay rises?"] Is it reasonable that a tax-paying couple should provide Rolls-Royce child care treatment for lone parents when it is perfectly open to those parents to do what other working women have to do—look to their mothers, aunts or neighbours to help out, rather than expect the help to come from taxes?

Mr. Newton: It is certainly the case that any improvement, as some would see it, or change in the benefit system in this sector, as in others, would cost money, and a decision would have to be taken about where that should come from and whether it might be better spent elsewhere. The last survey done on this subject—admittedly, it is rather old as it was done nearly 10 years ago by the social policy research unit—showed that about four out of five lone parents did not have any child care costs, even when they were in part-time work.

Mr. Rooker: Is the Secretary of State aware that last week the accounting officer of his Department, when asked why there had been a massive disincentive for lone parents to work during the past eight years, as identified by the Comptroller and Auditor General, twice told the Public Accounts Committee that it was due to ministerial policy decisions?

Mr. Newton: I am aware, having talked with my Permanent Secretary about the matter this morning, that he had some interesting exchanges with the hon. Gentleman last week. But I have not yet been able to read the transcript——

Mr. Kirkwood: Slacking!

Mr. Newton: Because it is not available.

Mr. Rooker: Yes, it is.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) will forgive me if I do not get drawn further down that path, especially as I believe that he has been promised a further note on some of the matters involved.
I must also tell the hon. Gentleman for the third time, but without apology, that the aspect of the system that has most obviously changed for the worse in the past 10 years has been the growing deficiency in collecting maintenance, which we are now vigorously trying to correct—I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman nodding in agreement.

Low-paid Workers

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many low-paid workers are entitled to claim means-tested benefits and also liable to pay income tax; and what was the number in 1985.

Mr. Newton: Although the information is not available on the basis requested, there are at present about 470,000 benefit units where the head is in full-time employment, pays income tax and receives an income-related benefit. Comparable information is not available for 1985.

Mr. Corbyn: I find that answer extremely surprising, because on 16 March 1990 such an answer was indeed given to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), and an analysis done by the Low Pay Unit showed that in the past four years the number of people who fall into the means test trap has risen from 290,000 to more than 400,000. That is because—I hope that the Minister will tell us what plans he has to change this rule—indexing is linked to prices, not earnings, so many more families than before are worse off as a result of the policies adopted by the Department. If the Minister is serious about conquering poverty in this country—I have my doubts whether he is—will he kindly change the indexing formula so that more families will not get caught in the poverty trap as they do now?

Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman may agree that the position is rather more complicated than he has acknowledged. He has referred to figures relating to the number of people with marginal deduction rates of 70 per cent. or more. An important part of the reforms that we undertook was dramatically to reduce the numbers subject to marginal deduction rates far higher than that. For example, whereas before the reforms more than

200,000 people were suffering deduction rates of more than 90 per cent., that number has fallen sharply but there has been some corresponding increase lower down.

Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that since the Conservatives took office we have taken people out of the income tax net because real income tax allowances have increased by 25 per cent. more than inflation, and that the reason why the overlap has increased is that we have also increased benefits available to the low paid? Indeed, the family income supplement, the forerunner of the present family credit, which was designed to assist the low paid was introduced by a Conservative Government.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is right to say that the number of people paying income tax would be far higher but for the changes that the Government have made. He is also right to refer to the changes that we have made which mean that income-related benefits are now calculated on income net of tax and national insurance contributions, which has helped to reduce those high marginal deduction rates and been a significant improvement in the system.

Housing Benefit

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to review the operation of the housing benefit system.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Although we monitor closely the working of the housing benefit scheme, we have no plans for a major review.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Does she agree that if we subsidise something we often get more of it, and that people in local government who administer housing benefit and, incidentally, the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 believe that such subsidies are often a temptation to people to throw themselves on the authority for accommodation? If she agrees with that, would she further agree that the way to do something about the housing problem is to recreate a market in rented homes, and that if we could abolish controls on newly rented property we would reinstate the friendly landlady, who would be willing to take in many of the young people and others who sleep rough on our streets?

Mrs. Shephard: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern in this matter. She has raised it before in the House and she will know that regulation of rents is a matter for the Department of the Environment. She will also know that housing benefit is not intended to help pay excessively high rents. Our arrangements for reimbursing local authorities for housing benefit expenditure give them an incentive not to pay benefit above reasonable market levels. Local authorities have powers to restrict benefit in cases where accommodation is over-large for a claimant's needs or unreasonably expensive. In the longer term, we propose to restrict the amount of housing benefit payable for properties at the top end of the market, but information to achieve that is not ready and will not be ready for some time.

Mr. Kirkwood: If the Government will not undertake a major review of the housing benefit system, will they take an urgent look at the way in which the housing benefit system prejudices the young, especially the


homeless young? Will the Minister study the speech by Mr. Donald Maclean, president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, who said in Peebles on Friday that stray dogs get a better deal than the young homeless in Scotland and that a civilised society such as ours should be able to do better than that? This is the first time in my experience that a senior and respected police officer has become involved in the benefit debate, and the Government should not ignore that. In the monitoring or review process, will the Minister bring forward urgent help for people under 25?

Mrs. Shephard: I am not aware of the speech made by Mr. Donald Maclean but I will certainly look at it. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the young homeless. I am sure that he is aware of the administrative and other changes introduced by the Department to help 16 and 17-year-olds become entitled to benefit. An announcement about that was made in November and changes were made in the interaction between benefit and youth training schemes. Those were announced by the Department of Employment in March. In July we made a substantial change in benefit arrangements for young people who have to live away from home. Of course, we continue to monitor the situation.

Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend constantly reviews the housing benefit system. Will she look at the position of pensioners in receipt of small occupational pensions for which they have paid during their working life? When money becomes available will my hon. Friend try to improve their standard of living through the rates of benefit paid to them as that group of people has been hard hit by current inflation and the introduction of the community charge.

Mrs. Shephard: As my hon. Friend says, the Department continues to review the position of all groups. One result of such review was the changes made in October to help particularly needy pensioners of the kind described by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister aware of the appalling hardship and deprivation caused to many people and certainly to my constituents because, as the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) has said, the occupational pension is fully taken into account and the amount of housing benefit is therefore either derisory or none at all? Why do the Government penalise time and again so many of our senior citizens who, because they receive such a pension—in many cases a small amount—have to pay large amounts in rent and rates so that their standard of living is constantly being undermined? The Government bear a heavy burden of responsibility for the shocking poverty which has resulted from the changes in housing benefit.

Mrs. Shephard: I repeat that it was precisely such groups that the Government sought to target with our October package of help for older and poorer pensioners and, of course, are keeping the position under review.

Mr. Burns: Will my hon. Friend accept that there is a genuine problem about the payment of housing benefit? It usually takes two weeks and sometimes more to process an application, but many people who become homeless have to pay their rent weekly and landlords will not wait until the housing benefit application has been processed. It

seems to be a vicious circle. I am sure that all hon. Members would be extremely grateful if my hon. Friend's Department could come up with any reasonable way to look at the rules and allow flexibility to minimise the number of people caught in that unfortunate trap.

Mrs. Shephard: The administration of housing benefit is a matter for local authorities. I believe that my hon. Friend has raised previously his concern about the way in which this is done in his constituency. Housing benefit claims are meant to be processed in 14 days. Many authorities achieve this target, and there is no reason why all of them should not do so. However, if claimants have to wait because of the inefficient operation of housing authorities there is the possibility of a crisis loan.

Benefit Uprating

Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in which years during the 1980s the uprating of supplementary benefit or income support rates provided for an increase in their real value; and by what percentage.

Mr. Scott: These benefit levels have been uprated every year to take account of forecast or actual movements in the appropriate index. In a number of years there has also been specific extra help for special groups such as pensioners, disabled people and families with children.

Mr. Battle: We are beginning to view with deep suspicion the statistics that the Government give us. Will the Minister recommend that all Conservative Members read the Select Committee on Social Services' report on low-income statistics before repeating the false claim that the poor are better off under this Government? Is not it a fact that the real value of income support fell by 3·7 per cent. between 1981 and 1989? How would the Minister respond to my constituents who spell out the fact that their income is £84·99 a week on benefit and their outgoings on basic essentials are £91·84, so there is a shortfall of £6·85 every week? How would Conservative Members manage on such an income for at least a year?

Mr. Scott: We are studying the Select Committee report. We note that the Select Committee has said that it wants further work to be done on the pattern of statistics and the way in which they are provided and to increase both in scope and depth the figures provided by the Government on these matters. We shall take account of those recommendations as we consider the report.
I repeat that the benefits are uprated year by year by the appropriate index. In addition, we have found the money to provide extra help for low income families, for older and disabled pensioners and for families with children.

Pensioners' Charter

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met a group of pensioners' representatives to discuss the pensioners' charter; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Scott: We regularly meet representatives from pensioner organisations to discuss a range of issues of concern to them. Most recently, I accompanied the Prime Minister at a meeting with a delegation from the National Pensioners Convention.

Mr. Skinner: The Minister will know that one of the demands made by pensioners is for the Government to restore the link between pensions and the prices and earnings index. The breaking of that link resulted in the Government stealing £12 per week from every pensioner. He will also be aware that pensioners want to abolish standing charges and prescription charges and to have free travel like Ministers who are carted all over the country. They also want to get rid of the poll tax. Why does not the Minister go down to her bunker in Downing street and tell her to get rid of it and get off the pensioners' backs?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman, who, as ever, is strong on rhetoric but short on facts, may remember that the last Labour Government failed to honour its obligation to uprate pensions annually in line with the RPI. Their record in allowing inflation to run rampant through the incomes of pensioners also let the pensioners down considerably. It comes ill from the mouths of Labour Members to criticise us on this.

Mr. Ashby: When my hon. Friend meets the pensioners' representatives will he point out the real things that the Government have done to ensure that future generations of pensioners have a decent pension——

Ms. Short: Such as?

Mr. Ashby: —such as personal pension plans and so on, so that by the year 2000, most pensioners will have an occupational pension as well as a state pension and will have a decent standard of living?

Mr. Scott: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. The encouragement of the growth of occupational pensions, the introduction of personal pensions, and the encouragement for people to save during their working lives is bound to transform the lives and prospects of people in retirement.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Minister accept that a major point of concern to all pensioners is the right to fuel and heating? Will he give serious consideration to the abolition of standing charges for gas and electricity supplies to pensioners and to the introduction of a cold climate allowance that is automatic and continuous?

Mr. Scott: I appreciate the hon. Lady's point, but I am not sure that the abolition of standing charges would necessarily help those most in need of assistance with heating. We incorporated the old heating allowances when we moved to the new system of income support. The case for the abolition of standing charges is not, in my view, convincing.

Mr. Barry Field: Has my right hon. Friend read the comment by the person to whom we may not refer in this House that the challenge facing the country is to find a more active role for pensioners? Does my right hon. Friend agree that many a nimble tune is played on an old fiddle? Will he consider my ten-minute Bill, which attempts to abolish age discrimination? Many pensioners are fed up with the emphasis placed on the quantity of life rather than the quality, as they have a real contribution to make to society.

Mr. Scott: I agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments, if not with the precise terms of his ten-minute Bill. Demography will encourage employers to take more

notice of the abilities that senior citizens can bring to our economy. By abolishing the earnings rule, we have taken a substantial step in encouraging pensioners to contribute.

Mr. Meacher: In the light of the Minister's first reply, does he accept that the basic pension rose by 20 per cent. in real terms after six years of Labour Government, but by only 2 per cent. after 11 years of Tory Government? Does he acknowledge that the decision by the European Court of Justice last Thursday concerning pension ages has implications for not only occupational pension schemes but the state retirement pension? Does he agree that aligning the pensionable ages of men and women need not be unduly costly if it is undertaken gradually and if the individual is given the choice between a lower retirement age or a higher pension? As the European Court judgment was made in respect of article 119 of the treaty, which is directly applicable in courts in the United Kingdom, will the Secretary of State act before he is forced to do so? If so, when and how?

Mr. Scott: As to the hon. Gentleman's first point, it is not the level of the basic pension but pensioners' total income that matters. Under the present Government, that has risen twice as fast as that of the population as a whole, by 31 per cent. or 3·5 per cent. per annum, compared with 0·6 per cent. per annum under the previous Labour Administration. We are studying the implications of the European Court's judgment and will announce our conclusions to the House in due course.

Maintenance Payments

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to ensure that more maintenance is recovered from absent parents.

Mr. Newton: We are currently reviewing the maintenance system and aim to bring forward proposals later this year. In the meantime, we have taken action to increase maintenance recovered under the current system.

Mr. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those initiatives, though somewhat delayed, are very welcome? Non-payment of maintenance is an abuse which comes to the attention of many right hon. and hon. Members—certainly it comes to my attention. Referring to earlier exchanges, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that there is unwillingness on the part of the average taxpayer constantly to plough money into public spending? If the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and some of his unreconstructed followers do not recognise that, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) certainly appears to do so. What sums of money does my right hon. Friend expect to recover from absent parents this year?

Mr. Newton: I shall regard the latter part of my hon. Friend's remarks as a question properly and accurately directed at members of the Opposition Front Bench. The amount of maintenance that we expect to recover should increase from rather less than £200 million last year to £260 million in the current year, which is a significant increase. For that reason, I am a little resistant to his suggestion that we have been slow on these initiatives. Much has been done within the present system, and we are considering whether it can be made much better.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the Secretary of State accept the congratulations of Labour Members on, after 11 years of inaction, doing at least something on this front? But will he accept our criticism of a scheme that allows mothers on welfare to make over their maintenance payments to the state being extended to when they return to work? If it is, will not he create yet another disincentive to work?

Mr. Newton: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, which we can consider in the wider review. I hope that he will agree—he was not inclined to do so the last time we discussed this—that for the state to involve itself in wholly private transactions would be a major step that should not be embarked on without consideration.

Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend accept that walking out on one's family is not an option which fathers should be able to consider? Will he undertake to consider the effect of the system that was introduced in Australia in 1988 for national collection and enforcement and its introduction in this country?

Mr. Newton: Yes, we have looked to see what we can learn from the Australian system. I was in the United States at Easter examining a system that operates in two states which has something in common with that in Australia. We can learn from both, even though we might not be able to copy either exactly.

Mr. Meacher: Is not this whole exercise purely aimed at cutting public expenditure rather than assisting lone parents, precisely because any maintenance recovered is used to dock benefit by a corresponding amount? If the Government wanted to assist mothers and their families, would not they use the £80 million that the Secretary of State expects to gain from the recovery of maintenance to return to mothers and their families at least some of the £1,100 million that they have stolen from them by freezing child benefit over the past three years?

Mr. Newton: Far more than £80 million has been allocated in the past two years to help low-income families with children, not least lone-parent families. As to the first, rhetorical, half of the hon. Gentleman's question, the answer is no. The plain fact is that lone parents who are receiving maintenance and their children are in a better position than those who are not receiving it, which is why we want to introduce a system for maintenance.

Benefit Processing

Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to improve the working of the Glasgow social security centre; and what plans he has to extend benefit processing work away from south-east England.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Glasgow centre is processing claims for income support faster and more accurately than the London offices from which the work was relocated. As ever, we are continuing to look for even greater improvements.
We plan to relocate the work of 21 London offices to centres in Glasgow, Belfast and Makerfield.

Miss Widdecombe: Does my hon. Friend agree that that greater speed and accuracy—I should be grateful if she would quantify it—has been achieved by the greater ease

of retention and recruitment away from London and the south-east? Is not there a lesson in that not only for her Department but for others?

Mrs. Shephard: The policy of other Departments is a matter for them, but the Department of Health, in conjunction with the Department of Social Security, is transferring many staff to Leeds. On my hon. Friend's point about accuracy and speed, in the London offices there was a 29 per cent. error rate in the payment of income support. That has fallen steadily and now stands at 9 per cent., which is a vast improvement. Income support can now be assessed within five days, compared with up to 14 days previously. The problems in the London offices were, as she says, caused by the retention and recruitment of staff—a problem shared by the DSS with many large private concerns.

Dr. Godman: How do the error and processing rates in England compare with those in Scotland? Are not there still offices in Scotland that are undermanned in terms of the workload presented by too high unemployment and other social and economic circumstances? When will the Greenock office be given more staff to deal with these problems?

Mrs. Shephard: Performance in offices varies throughout the country. The figures that I cited for the group of London offices were the worst. I believe that I am right in saying that no office in Scotland has the problems of that group. The introduction of an operational strategy and directing staff to priority work mean that there will be a continuing improvement in the achievement of targets throughout the country, including Scotland. I remind the hon. Gentleman that that improvement has been achieved in Scotland through the relocated work in Glasgow.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend will be aware that the three offices to have work relocated to Glasgow first were those at Ealing and that there has been a dramatic and welcome reduction in the time taken to process applications. Is she aware that the interface with the Department of Employment is the one causing delays because the office cannot keep up with the greater pace? Will my hon. Friend liaise with the Department to ensure that the momentum is maintained?

Mrs. Shephard: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall do all that is necessary to alleviate that problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Churches

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby representing the Church Commissioners, how much money was spent in the last year on the maintenance of archaeologically and architecturally significant churches.

Mr. Michael Alison: (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Responsibility for the maintenance of the Church of England's 16,400 churches and cathedrals, most of which are listed, rests with the parochial church councils and chapters. It is estimated that in 1989 the Church found in excess of £70 million for maintenance of those buildings,


mainly through the giving of its congregations, but including about £7 million state aid towards structural repairs of outstanding churches in use.

Mr. Banks: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the importance of these churches of great architectual significance extends beyond the congregations that use them. What support is given from central Government funds to assist in their maintenance? A number of significant Christian churches in, for example, the middle east are falling into a state of sad disrepair. Can anything be done, either by the Church Commissioners or through discussions with central Government, to provide much-needed funds for those wonderful buildings abroad?

Mr. Alison: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to allow me to take notice of the latter part of his question about churches overseas, but I agree that there are some fine churches with Anglican roots in European countries. I repeat that about £7 million of state aid flows, largely through English Heritage, into the main pool of resources for maintaining these splendid old churches.

Mr. Carrington: My right hon. Friend will be aware that considerable disquiet is expressed from time to time about the effects on the interior fixtures and fittings in churches of changing the use of churches from worship to alternative practices. Will he convey to the ecclesiastical authorities our concern to ensure that not only the fabric outside churches but the artistic heritage inside is preserved?

Mr. Alison: Yes, we pay careful attention to that problem. Not many months ago, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) asked about the future of important organs in old churches. We have a procedure for ensuring that the artistic heritage is treated with the same respect as the old buildings.

Mr. Cryer: Each year applications are made for consent to demolish listed church buildings. Does the right hon. Gentleman have any idea of the numbers involved, as that would show the shortfall between the money raised locally and through English Heritage grants and that necessary to stop the demolition of churches, which has continued almost unabated for the past 20 to 30 years? We need to take action to stop further demolition.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that, of 1,261 churches declared redundant between 1969 and 1989, only 297 have been demolished. So three quarters of them have been preserved and remain standing. In respect of the 297, a rigorous procedure had to be undergone before demolition could be authorised. Moreover, I am happy to say that more churches have been built than have been demolished. Three hundred and ninety-one new churches have been built, so we have made a net gain in the demolition stakes.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that members of my own parish church in Gretton in Northamptonshire are pleased to have received a grant of £34,000—I had the sterling support of my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell)—but that that is only a drop in the ocean compared with the needs of many parish churches throughout Britain? We face a tremendous problem in maintaining our great heritage, and we must all bend our minds to deciding how best to achieve that.

Mr. Alison: I take my hon. Friend's point, but he will appreciate the significant performance of parishes up and down the country in raising as much as £70 million towards the maintenance of our elderly and historic churches. That shows that there is a vast source of good will and commitment to enable the Church as a voluntary association to do its own main burden-bearing.

South Africa

Mr. Gow: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the policy of the Church Commissioners about investment in the Republic of South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alison: The Commissioners' policy is long established and has been well publicised. They do not invest in any South African company or in any other company where more than a small part of its business is in South Africa. When they invest in a company with a small stake in South Africa, they try to ensure that that company follows enlightened social and employment policies, as far as that is possible within the system of apartheid, of which they have repeatedly expressed their abhorrence. In common with the rest of the Church, the Commissioners welcome the important political developments since the end of 1989 and hope that the momentum will be sustained.

Mr. Gow: Is it really the case that the Bishop of Oxford has it in mind to bring legal proceedings involving the Church Commissioners concerning the investment policy of the Church of England? Instead of indulging in absurd litigation of this kind, should not the bishop and the Church be engaged in the business of saving the souls of the people, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry and healing the sick? Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that this mischievous bishop will not be considered for appointment to Canterbury?

Mr Alison: It is not, alas, in my gift—even on this important occasion—to give a definitive answer to my hon. Friend's final question. But I can confirm that the Bishop of Oxford appears to be intent on taking legal action against the Church of England. It could only bring the Church into disrepute if the bishop proceeded with his legal action against the Church Commissioners. The action is bound to be adversarial and will be perceived publicly as hostile. I hope that the Bishop of Oxford and his associates will decide to withdraw it.
The Church Commissioners derive no more than one third of 1 per cent. of their annual income from South African sources and effective action to eliminate even this tiny fraction could bring hugely disproportionate detriment to the Commissioners' beneficiaries—of whom my hon. Friend gave an enlightened and extended description.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Although one can understand the motives of the Bishop of Oxford, may I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), answering on behalf of the Church Commissioners? The Bishop of Oxford's action seems to be a distraction from more important priorities. Will the right hon. Member for Selby urge the Church Commissioners to sustain their present policy of not investing in South Africa unless they are advised by the


Christian churches in South Africa to change that policy? Will they above all not be over-hasty in a decision to change their policy under pressure from the Government or anyone else, but rather lead and advise the Government on what their policy should be in the interests of the souls as well as the bodies of people in South Africa?

Mr. Alison: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's comments. However, I repeat that the Church Commissioners do not invest directly in South Africa. The complexity of disentangling even that tiny residual investment, which is associated with some of the largest household names in British industry, would be considerably detrimental for the clergy and pensioners whom we have to support. We could not await an imprimatur of approval from the churches in South Africa to consider changes in that large overall investment.

Christ Church, Bootle

Mr. Frank Field: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the future of Christ church, Waterloo, Bootle.

Mr. Alison: A proposal to use Christ church, Waterloo as a nursing home is at present under consideration.

Mr. Field: Does the Commissioner accept that we believe that he must be apprehensive about giving a reply like that when the Church spends so much of its time saying that it looks after the inner city? One of the finest buildings in Bootle has been left empty for nearly 10 years. The diocese and the Commissioners are sitting on any application for the matter to be referred to the redundant churches fund. Will he allow that to happen this year?

Mr. Alison: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that 10 years of vacant standing in Bootle is an unacceptably long period. The hon. Gentleman will know that there have been several attempts to try to persuade alternative users to come forward and in many cases promising schemes foundered at the last moment. However, there is at least now a positive scheme for a useful future for the church and under the impetus of the hon. Gentleman's question I will do everything to accelerate a definitive decision and a constructive future use for the church.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Organisation

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council what recent representations he has received from hon. Members about the organisation of the House; and if he will make a statement.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I receive representations on many aspects of this matter from hon. Members in all parts of the House. Hon. Members will know that I share a number of their concerns. Together with others, I am giving close consideration to ways of securing improvements and I hope to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that a real improvement that could be made in this place would

be to start at a different time? Does he agree that the 2·30 pm kick-off is deliberately designed to allow hon. Members—mainly Tory Members—to make money by moonlighting outside this place? Is not it scandalous and bordering on the obscene when ex-Cabinet Ministers can pick up £250,000 for two days a week at Barclays bank and elsewhere and that others have four, five or six jobs while the workers are being told to go steady on wage rises and pensioners are being pushed through the hoop day in and day out? Why does not the Leader of the House introduce full-time Members of Parliament and get rid of the moonlighting?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am comforted by the fact that most of the country judges the fatuity of the points made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) by the intemperance of his arguments. Even if they had any validity, they would be destroyed by the way in which he presents them. The hon. Gentleman may recall that there was an experiment such as he suggested, with the House sitting during the morning——

Mr. Skinner: I was not here then.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It was started even before the hon. Gentleman was here. He would have revelled in it. It was introduced under a substantial Labour majority in the House, but the experiment foundered after quite a short time.

Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the present system has served us well for a very long time and, furthermore, that those who were opposed to television—as I was—now find that many people look in to see what we are doing in the afternoon? In the morning they would be too busy to do that. Above all, we want hon. Members in this place who have time for other interests. This would be a dreadful place if we were all full-time employees. We must have outside experience which is most valuable.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for the calm way in which he presented the arguments that prevailed in the House when the matter was last considered about 20 years ago.

Dr. Cunningham: It is unsatisfactory for the Leader of the House to suggest that, because there was an experiment 20 years ago, we could not benefit from a review of the way in which we conduct our business now. This House seems to sit for more hours and more days than almost any other western legislature, and we are not conspicuously better at producing effective legislation. There is surely a case for us to examine again why we must sit for such long hours. Will the Leader of the House at least consider this matter under the auspicies of the Commission or in some other way and report back to the House?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's point is entirely different from that of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It is founded upon exactly the opposite premise. The hon. Member for Bolsover argues that the House is hardly manned at all, that we all do other things all the time and that, because of moonlighting, we are scarcely here. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) suggests, with much more reason, that the House sits longer hours than are reasonable compared with other legislatures. A suggestion of that kind, related


also to the efficiency of our work, and put in the hon. Gentleman's moderate fashion, may deserve consideration. It is quite different from the point advanced by the hon. Member for Bolsover.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: In view of the distinguished work that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has done in opposing the Labour party's new policy review and the national executive, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider giving the hon. Gentleman special facilities and more accommodation in his new role of leader of the opposition to the Leader of the Opposition?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall consider the suggestion, but I fancy that it may be of more use to the nation, if not to the Labour party, for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to be exposed in public as much as possible.

Records (Storage)

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will provide secure accommodation for the storage of records in the keeping of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests and the Select Committee on Defence.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have received no representations from either my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) or my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) that they are experiencing any particular difficulty in this matter, but I note the hon. Gentleman's solicitous concern.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would more secure accommodation speed up the process whereby Parliament can ask questions about this relationship between the Ministry of Defence and SGL? Can we chase the inquiries that Mr. Nicholas Comfort and others tell us the Conservative Chief Whip is making into the business links of the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) and clarify the Ministry of Defence's extremely carefully and ambiguously worded letter to me on possible American complaints about the hon. Member for Hampshire, East? Does the Leader of the House approve of the Chairman of a Select. Committee having such public relations links in matters that his Select Committee is supposed to scrutinise?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Characteristically, the hon. Gentleman's points arise in no respect out of his original question. Equally characteristically, he knows that they are the subject of an investigation by the Select Committee on Members' Interests and cannot sensibly be dealt with by this sort of question and answer. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise any points of substance, he can and should refer them to that Select Committee.

Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the original question by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was on the security of Select Committee records and reports and so on? Is not it a fact that many hon. Members are extremely careless with their papers? When they leave Select Committes they often throw away their papers very carelessly. Reporters in this place are past masters at going through wastepaper bins and paper sacks, and rightly so if hon. Members are careless. Should not we be more careful with our paperwork? Sometimes hon. Members get hysterical at the

paperwork that is put before them. But when Committees sit in public, at the end of the day, a report is written and all the stuff that they are keeping secure is in the published report. Does my right hon. and learned Friend wonder why there is all this fuss?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the original question, all classified documents are registered and kept in secure facilities in secure areas. Members of Select Committees have access to them only under supervision in those circumstances. As I understand it, the Select Committee on Members' Interests would not have access to documents of that kind. My hon. Friend makes a fair point that was recently underlined by the Privileges Committee. Hon. Members should take greater care of important documents than some of them sometimes appear to do.

Mr. Cryer: Is not it true that the fact that the Chair of the Select Committee on Defence has outside interests related to defence——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the question on the Order Paper, which is about the storage of records.

Mr. Cryer: Is not it true that those links have caused consternation and that the Select Committee investigation, which will take up a great deal of time, may come across confidential documents that should be kept in secure places? Would not the whole matter be simplified if hon. Members who are Chairs of Select Committees did not have outside interests? Whatever the personal position, that would assure the public outside that there is no possible conflict of interest between the two.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The two questions are quite separate. The Select Committee on Members' Interests is investigating the broader question. Documents in the custody of the Select Committee on Defence are treated as top secret, registered and kept in secure facilities in secure areas.

Statues

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any plans to arrange for additional suitable statues (a) of parliamentarians and (b) of animals near the precints of Westminster; and if will make a statement.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My remit as Leader of the House does not extend beyond the parliamentary precincts. I therefore have no plans for statues of either parliamentarians or animals as my hon. Friend suggests. There will, however, be some interesting opportunities to place works of art in various forms in the new parliamentary building when it is occupied next year.

Mr. Greenway: Why are not statues of parliamentarians, excluding animals, erected until after they are dead? Will my right hon. and learned Friend encourage any suitable Committee to reconsider that decision? Although we do not want any mad cows in Parliament, will my right hon. and learned Friend promise to join me in leading a campaign to establish in or near Parliament a statue, with a fine steed, of the leader of any Government who succeed in preserving minimum standards for the export of horses and ponies after 1992?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As always, I am compelled to admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity. However, as the rule

that would prevent a statue of him from being erected until 10 years after his death has been in force since 1925, it has a respectable ancestry.

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Donald Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One at a time, please. I call Mr. Thompson first.

Mr. Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice. As you will know, tomorrow we are to discuss the community charge. A recent poll in my local newspaper has stated that most of my constituents are in favour of community charge capping. However, as there will be some legal action about community charge capping in either the near future or the far distant future, will we be in order if we discuss all aspects of the community charge tomorrow if we manage to catch your eye?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice of that question and I can give him the answer. The motion has not yet been tabled, and until I have seen it I cannot consider the scope of the debate or whether it would be appropriate for me to exercise my discretion with regard to the sub judice rule.

Mr. Thompson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you saying that the leader of the Social and Liberal Democrats has not yet tabled the motion?

Mr. Speaker: That is exactly what I said.

Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the Secretary of State for Energy given you notice that he intends to come to the House to make a statement about the future of the coal industry? If reports from the British Coal Corporation are to be believed, we are threatened with the extinction of the coal industry in Scotland, the north-east and Wales and with savage cuts in the coal industry in Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire. The Secretary of State for Energy has apparently been appointed to take charge of co-ordinating Government publicity, but we should like him to come to the House to tell us what he is doing to co-ordinate the Government's energy policy.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. No, I have not had any request for a statement on that matter, which I understand arose because of a leak in one of the newspapers.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask a question about the consistency of the use of parliamentary language? You, Mr. Speaker, are rightly quick to complain when hon. Members attack Members of the other place. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) to refer to the Bishop of Oxford as "mischievous"? Is that parliamentarily acceptable?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Bishop of Oxford not at present a member of the House of Lords, although he may become one in due course.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to the point of order of the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson). First—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hughes: First, in accordance with normal procedure, tomorrow's motion will be tabled early this evening in the Table Office. That is often done on Opposition days by members of all parties. It will he available for the hon. Member for Calder Valley and others to view there, and it will give ample opportunity for the hon. Gentleman and others to criticise the community charge as a whole, as well as specific details of it.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman. It is for the convenience of the House if motions are tabled as early as possible, as it gives the entire House the opportunity to consider the motions on the Order Paper.

Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if you were given notice by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that he would like to take time this afternoon to make a statement about the appalling events that have occurred in the past few hours in Israel and the occupied territories? Not only were seven unarmed Palestinian labourers shot, but now the Israeli defence force has put 1 million Palestinians under curfew in the Gaza strip and on the West Bank.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not had such a request.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask Opposition Members who are rising to remember that there is a great demand to take part in today's Opposition day debate, especially from Scottish Members who wish to refer to Ravenscraig. The hon. Gentleman may finish his point of order, but it is not a matter for me.

Mr. Nellist: I accept that, Mr. Speaker, and I shall be brief.
Many hon. Members, perhaps on both sides of the House, would have wanted to make representations through the Foreign Secretary on how it is possible that, according to the IDF, one in a thousand people in the Gaza strip were wounded last night and this morning. That is 622 people out of a population of 650,000. That is horrific.

Mr. Speaker: It is indeed a very serious matter, but I have received no request for a statement.

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a point of order that is directly for you, Mr. Speaker, related to the tabling of questions, on which hon. Members need advice, and it follows points that have already been made. I understand that the Secretary of State for Energy has been given an additional responsibility relating to the co-ordination of Government publicity. That is clearly outside his remit within that Department, and outside the work of the Department. What opportunity is there for hon. Members to table questions to him about his carrying out of that function?

Mr. Speaker: I am not certain that co-ordination of policy is a matter that is normally raised in the House. The


hon. Gentleman's colleague on the Front Bench—the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—also co-ordinates policy.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Arising from question No. 73, you will have heard the Leader of the House announce that the Select Committe on Members' Interests has carried out an inquiry into the conflict of interests in the case of the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) between his interests as Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence and his commercial interests. That information has never been revealed by our Committee. The statement of the Leader of the House was a clear breach of privilege, as he has no right to make it. It has been the Committee's aim to retain as much secrecy as possible on those matters; the right hon. and learned Gentleman did precisely what the Committee has been trying to avoid for the past month.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I did not quite get the thrust of that point of order—[Interruption.] I think that it is fairly common knowledge that that Select Committee is examining those matters.

CONTRACTS (APPLICABLE LAW) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Ordered,
That the Contracts (Applicable Law) Bill [Lords.] be referred to a Second Reading Committee—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Opposition Day

[12TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Ravenscraig

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I repeat what I said a moment ago, that there is great demand to participate in the debate. Although it is not possible for me to put a limit on speeches because this is a half-day debate, if hon. Members limit their speeches to 10 minutes, many will stand a good chance of being called.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the decision by British Steel to close the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig with major job losses; recognises that the hot strip mill and a major new investment programme for Ravenscraig are essential to ensure a viable future for the Scottish steel industry; calls upon British Steel to reverse its catastrophic decision; and urges Her Majesty's Government at every level to unite in opposing British Steel's decision and to do everything possible to reverse a closure which threatens the future of the steel industry in Scotland.
I do not need to spend much time convincing the House of the importance of the issue and of the significance of Ravenscraig to the Scottish economy. It is easy to draw unpleasant conclusions and predict dire consequences of the recent developments and the announced closure of the strip mill. We on this side try to avoid the doomsday argument and try not to proclaim daily that the end is nigh. Too many people in Scottish politics see disasters as a political opportunity privately to be welcomed, even if publicly deplored.
Nevertheless, there is undoubtedly a question mark and genuine anxiety not just about the 770 jobs whose loss is immediately threatened, but about the whole future of the Ravenscraig plant. If, at the end of 1994, it is producing steel and slab alone, incomplete and vulnerable, clearly problems will arise. That fact is bluntly recognised in the press release of 16 May issued by British Steel, which made the announcement about the strip mill:
The impact of the continuous casting investments at Port Talbot and Llanwern will, in due course, also affect steel production at Ravenscraig so that production of steel at that works beyond 1994 will be dependent upon the economic and commercial scene and the demand for steel slabs.
In the context of what has happened, that is less than a ringing commitment to the future of the Scottish steel industry.
Certainly everyone in Scottish politics will be uncomfortably aware that the Arthur Young report, which was produced in February 1988, set out what it saw as a possible scenario, leading the total dismantlement of the Scottish steel industry. So far, it is unpleasantly and uncannily on course to become reality.
Other important plants in Scotland—Clydesdale and Dalzell—have their problems and will undoubtedly be the subject of debate on another occasion. The House, and certainly the men who work at Clydesdale and Dalzell, will forgive me and will understand if I focus on Ravenscraig's future.
The mood of Scotland is undoubtedly that we should unite to fight the possible closure and the immediate threat


to the strip mill. I have no wish to make an abrasive speech. Like everyone else in Scotland, I seek co-operation and the widest possible coalition from which we can attempt a counter-attack on this issue. However, the Secretary of State would not expect me to fail to record my disagreement and, indeed, dismay at the way in which the matter has been handled until now. We are paying the price for the Government's hands-off attitude, for their insistence that this is a matter simply for the commercial judgment of British Steel and for giving the impression that they have no particular remit or responsibility for the matter. All too often Ministers have looked like passive spectators.
On Wednesday there were supplementary questions on the private notice question from the hon. Members for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), who is in his place, for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller), who I am glad to see has come to listen to the debate, and for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). I should like to suggest that they in their enthusiasms were fringe figures and that in suggesting that Government involvement in the future of Ravenscraig was improper, they were ploughing a lonely course. The trouble is that they seem to reflect the views of the Department of Trade and Industry all too accurately. That is one of our problems.
For a long time it has been clear that British Steel has a less than full commitment to its Scottish operations. If we are to avoid the disaster that the Arthur Young report predicts, there must be a sustained and urgent effort. My charge against the Secretary of State for what happened in the past is that there is no evidence that that effort was made.
I met the right hon. and learned Gentleman in December 1989—I remember the conversation well—when a number of colleagues and I expressed our keen alarm about what was happening to the three major steel-making centres in Scottish industry. There were also a number of occasions when the Secretary of State was pressed again during Scottish Question Time—I rehearsed that during the questions following the private notice question—and he told us that he would meet the chairman of British Steel in the relatively near future or shortly. Unfortunately, on 2 May the term "shortly" had a particularly sinister significance, because the Secretary of State was summoned for the wrong reasons—to be given, in effect, formal intimation of execution.
Press speculation—the Secretary of State will know of the article that appeared in The Observer—has suggested that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knew well what was going on. That article stated:
Inquiries by The Observer reveal that far from learning for the first time last Tuesday of plans to close the plant, Rifkind and the Scottish Office had been fully appraised of British Steel's intentions as they developed.
The Secretary of State has strongly and hotly denied that, and I am very happy to accept his assurances on that point. However, it leads to the inescapable conclusion that, if he did not know, he should have done, and that if he had asked, he might well have been told.
The long period of inaction that led up to last week's meeting with Sir Robert Scholey left British Steel unhindered in its plans to put in place an unsound strategy, which had disastrous consequences for our cause. I believe that the Secretary of State posted himself missing from the field of action during that time.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Although accepting the Secretary of State's assurances, does the hon. Gentleman find it extraordinary that, given that the chairman of British Steel had made it clear two years ago that, eventually, he wanted to close the hot strip mill and that, in the past few months, he refused to meet either the Secretary of State or the Minister of State, the Secretary of State did not wonder whether something was up? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is rather amazing that it came as such a surprise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the end of the day?

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman has given a summary of my remarks and I agree with him.
The tragedy upon which we must concentrate is the fact that it will not be easy now to divert British Steel from its chosen course. Privatisation has weakened the public interest that can be brought to bear and the leverage that could be exercised. The prospects for altering the decision would have been infinitely better if those chances had been taken before that decision was publicly announced. The Secretary of State must bear some responsibility for that. I welcome the fact, however, that the Secretary of State had been converted by circumstance to a more positive attitude in the past 10 days. He has made clear his concern and the fact that he wishes to see the decision reversed. I understand that he had a positive meeting with the stewards from Ravenscraig this morning and that they took some encouragement from what he had to say. I would be unhelpful and churlish if I did not welcome that.
The debate will give us the chance to clarify not only the Secretary of State's position, but that of the Government. It is extremely important that that opportunity is taken. The Secretary of State has used words such as "deplore", and said that he is "disturbed". He has stated that the Scottish Office
seek to persuade British Steel".—[Official Report, 16 May 1990; Vol. 172, c. 887.]
That is all right as far as it goes, but Scotland will demand something a little more positive and energetic than is suggested by those words. If we are to have any chance of success in our task, we cannot go at it by way of apology, afterthought or on a "sorry-to-bother you" basis. That will not impress Sir Robert Scholey and Mr. Llowarc of British Steel. We cannot have a Secretary of State who speaks in constrained language and leaves the impression, at least with some of us, that, while he is certainly trying to satisfy Scottish opinion, he is also keen not to sacrifice the good opinion of colleagues who may not agree with him.
There has been an attempt at various times to downgrade the issue. It has been suggested that the future of Ravenscraig is of importance to Lanarkshire, but not to the Scottish economy as a whole. I have been told by journalists of the words used by the Secretary of State at a press briefing—I hope that I have got the words accurate—when he said that the job loss was not
dramatic in itself although disappointing to those affected".
It seems that the Secretary of State is trying to put a pedestrian cloak over an industrial crisis of sharp proportions, which also involves a number of personal tragedies. What we seek from the Secretary of State today is a definition of where he stands and, more importantly, what he intends to do. We are looking for a commitment by the Government as a whole that goes well beyond simply polite and cursory inquiries at British Steel headquarters.
My second point to the Secretary of State—I hope that he will be able to help me—is that he needs allies in every part of his party, the Government and the country. If he knocks on the door of Sir Robert Scholey, he may well be seen as a predictable visitor—a dutiful nod to Scottish opinion—and discounted as such. If representatives from the Department of Trade and Industry or the Prime Minister were to come and argue the case, say that Ravenscraig was something of central importance to the Scottish economy and there should be reconsideration, that would shake British Steel's complacency, and be a central part of the campaign.
We have been told be the Secretary of State that his Cabinet colleagues are in total agreement with his line. Indeed, the vice-chairman of the Scottish Conservative party, at a meeting of the steel core group in Strathclyde region on Saturday, said that there was total agreement among Cabinet colleagues. I hope that that is true, and welcome it because I recognise that in Scotland there is an almost united opinion.
The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who is just leaving the Chamber, was quoted as saying:
The future direction of the campaign should be to persuade British Steel to invest in Scotland and to take advantage of the magnificent workforce.
I agree with that and think that almost everyone in Scotland would do so. I hope the fact that the words came from the hon. Member for Stirling may reassure some of the Government's Back Benchers that my position is not ideologically unsound, on that issue.
We need evidence of positive support beyond the Secretary of State for Scotland. If hon. Members remember what the Leader of the House said last Thursday and the previously expressed views of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, they will understand why there is a great deal of doubt about whether that support is forthcoming in Scotland and I suspect, possibly just as importantly, in British Steel headquarters.
I hope that the Secretary of State will not think that I am making a cheap point—it is not meant to be—but I cannot help thinking that it is of some significance that there is no Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry in the Chamber to listen to this debate. At best, that is discourteous and I fear that it may confirm the political signifiance of the split that I believe exists. I hope that my fear can be laid to rest by the Secretary of State.
I want the Secretary of State to be successful in this matter, but he needs the help and support of his colleagues. He must not approach the task as someone who has been given a licence to argue a case because of his special difficulties, while the Government's general line remains unsympathetic. That would be a recipe for a cosmetic exercise bound to failure.
I shall briefly outline the reasons why the Government should be involved. I do not think that British Steel is just another private sector company, as has been again and again suggested by Conservative Members. Ministers hold a golden share. I appreciate that they say it is for limited purposes, but it exists and they do not normally hold golden shares in just another private sector company. They are responsible for the guarantees that have been given.

Those guarantees, particularly on the issue of the possible sale of assets in Scotland, require considerable clarification.
I have looked carefully at the statement made by the present Minister for Health, then Minister with responsibility for industry, in the House, and it is not clear whether that guarantee applies only to a closure at the end of 1994 or would apply after 1994. Having discussed such matters more recently than many other people with British Steel, I suspect that there may be potential for a dispute about what that undertaking is worth. That should be clarified.
The golden share and guarantees are evidence that we are considering a sensitive issue with widespread economic importance. It is not a routine, undramatic loss of another 770 jobs, even with all the pain and bitterness that that would produce. It will have a knock-on effect on all the steel industry in Scotland and the Scottish economy as a whole. Sir Robert Scholey, with his narrow and no doubt legally justified point of view as chairman of British Steel, may want to shrug off some of those effects, but the Government cannot.
I am told today by ScotRail that 50 per cent. of the revenue of British Rail freight in Scotland is produced by Ravenscraig. There will be a substantial impact on the brave new world of privatised electricity of Scottish Power if it loses what I suspect is the biggest customer in its portfolio. I know that the new private company which is to replace the Clyde port authority in a few months, if the private legislation gets through the House with the continuing support of the Government, will depend heavily for income on the landing dues at Hunterston, the loss of which will knock a massive hole in its financial position. I mention all these because they are examples of the wider public interest which have clearly not been taken into the reckoning by British Steel when reaching its decision but which should be dealt with by the Government.
Everyone who has followed the debate will understand what I mean when I say that national press reaction to what has happened in Scotland has been particularly unfortunate. The dismay with which the news has been greeted in Scotland has met with some derision in the press. The decision to close the strip mill has been seen as a virtuous exercise in commercial realism.
That point of view has been put in trenchant terms by the Financial Times and The Independent, and in offensive terms by the Evening Standard, which some hon. Members will know as London's local evening paper.
Ravenscraig must close",
it tells us. Perhaps I can give a flavour of the article:
The Scots, who have become subsidy junkies as successive Governments … have tried to bribe them with ever larger handouts at the expense of the comparatively little-subsidised English taxpayer, will no doubt wail like a trampled bagpipe at the removal of British Steel's financial support for Ravenscraig.
That is in no way a useful contribution to the debate.
By way of a corrective, I made some inquiries in the Library which referred me to an interesting debate in the House in which a Transport Minister pointed out that subsidy for transport in south-east England will rise from this year's £387 million, in constant terms, to £669 million in 1992; and that the underground in London will get £2·2 billion investment over the next three years. I make no complaint about that; I accept that it is necessary. I make the point only by way of a corrective against those who call


our legitimate anxieties the tortured wail of a bagpipe. It might be of interest to some hon. Members to know that the Scottish Office budget for industry, energy, trade and employment this year is £251 million. That begins to show why we do not sympathise with some of the harsh and crude language, bordering on the insulting, which has entered the debate.
I warn the House that it is a comforting theory to say that there is no need to look at the merits of a closure of this sort—that management has decreed and management must always be right. But in this case the management has got it wrong. There was a letter in The Scotsman today from Cardinal Gordan Gray, a much respected leader of the Roman Catholic community in Scotland. He described himself as appalled by what has happened, and protested that there was no morality in the market place. I recognise that that is a controversial view, but I stress that one does not need to agree with the cardinal on that point to agree with those of us who argue that it would be tragic and deeply wrong to close the strip mill at Ravenscraig.
This is not a smokestack industry to be decently buried; it is not a lame duck industry producing an unwanted product at an unacceptable price. We have it on the authority of the Prime Minister herself that the work force have done well—they produce steel at 2·33 man hours per tonne, which is as low as any plant in Europe. The workers are not going because they are inefficient or because they are loss-making. I cannot quote figures on that, but I believe that it is true. They are going because British Steel has made an assumption that the capacity is not needed and it can cut it because the market will remain depressed. That assumption can and should be challenged.
Strip production in British Steel at the moment is about 5·5 million tonnes. Strip capacity at the two Welsh plants will be about 6 million tonnes. We must bear in mind the fact that the number of car units to be produced in this country will rise from 1·2 million to 2 million with the arrival of Japanese firms; we must remember the increase in North sea activity; the prediction that the European market over the next four or five years will grow by 1 per cent. a year; and the fact that we have a substantial direct deficit in steel trade with the rest of Europe, and with Germany in particular. So is it right to cut our capacity calculations so neat and assume that we cannot put any of these things right and pick up an increasing share of our own market?

Mr. Roger King: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the expansion of the British car industry to 2 million car units per year. I accept that that is a realistic target for the end of this decade. Why did Scotland not want to be part of that development? Its work force rejected the setting up of the Ford factory in Dundee. Many of us would be more sympathetic to the Scottish cause if it did not turn its back on such high-tech industries.

Mr. Dewar: I shall answer that petty point with a rather more serious one. The hon. Gentleman should address himself to the question why, when there is to be a big increase in demand for steel for the car industry, British Steel assumes it will not supply that demand. That is the case for the survival of Ravenscraig.
My last point is rather unusual, because I shall conclude by looking at the motion and the Government amendment. This debate is not an end in itself. It should

not be seen as an empty political exercise, which is how some of our debates are seen. I have concentrated on government and the parliamentary campaign, but every section of Scottish life, including, to be fair, the Scottish Conservative party, is anxious to contribute to the fight to save the strip mill at Ravenscraig. The work force, under the leadership of the shop steward, Tommy Brennan, and his colleagues, has led by example and deserves better than this announcement.
I shall conclude by speaking about the role of Government. I am depressed by the Government amendment because it will undermine confidence in the Secretary of State's good intentions and commitments and his readiness to go into battle on behalf of the plant. The Government amendment says that this is a matter for "commercial judgment". It certainly expresses concern about the job losses that would follow the closure of the strip mill. However, the only thing it does in terms of action is to invite British Steel to explain and defend its decision. It does not commit the Government to anything and does not promise any action. There is no hint of ministerial pressure or of the Department of Trade and Industry getting its hands dirty in a good cause.
In reply to a private notice question tabled by me, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the desirability of doing that which can be done to reverse the decision."—[Official Report, 16 May 1990; Vol. 172, c. 888.]
The key question that we want answered by the Secretary of State is, what can be done? He spoke about
that which can be done".
Does that amount simply to inviting British Steel to explain and defend its decisions? If that is the strength of the Government's involvement and of Ministers' imagination and commitment, it will not do.
It is quite disgraceful that the shop stewards were given the news by the local director and have had absolutely no access to top management. They have not seen Jake Stewart, the head of the strip division, or anyone else of similar seniority. That should be put right. What could be more tentative than merely to invite British Steel to defend its decision? We are looking for positive evidence of Government action in support of the campaign. The Government's response will be seen as totally inadequate in Scotland, and the House should recognise it.
When we tackle British Steel, we want to know that the Government are fighting our corner. I say unashamedly that, if the Secretary of State wants to put himself at the head of that campaign, we will give him every conceivable support and will be grateful for that sign of initiative and energy. If he does not do that, it will mean that the Government propose to do nothing apart from saying to the work force of the strip mill in Ravenscraig, "Perhaps you would like to explain why you are about to be executed." When that little exercise has been carried out, that will be the end of the Government's involvement. That will not do, and it will be seen not to do.
Our motion calls for reversal of the decision to close, asks British Steel to think again, and asks the Government "at every level" to join the struggle to save the plant
and to do everything possible to reverse
the decision. The first part of that motion is not original. It is almost exactly the substance of an early-day motion signed last week by all Tory Back-Bench Members representing Scottish constituencies. The second part


spells out the essential minimum and a Government commitment in which I understand the Secretary of State believes. It outlines what Scotland expects.
I know that it would be extremely difficult for the Government to do this, but I ask them not to oppose our motion and not to insist on their amendment. There is no heresy, there is nothing unacceptable or out of line with what the Secretary of State has represented as his position, at least in Scotland, in our motion. If the Secretary of State will not accept our motion, I urge him to spell out why he will not do so. If he did, it would unite Scotland and create the kind of platform from which we could mount a campaign which had a genuine hope of reversing the decision and saving the plant.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'recognises that British Steel's investment and operational decisions are a matter for the commercial judgment of the company; nevertheless expresses its concern about the potential employment consequences of the company's decision to close the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig; recognises the considerable productivity achievements of the Ravenscraig workforce; invites British Steel to explain and defend its decision; and deplores any attempt to extract political capital from this event rather than offering any constructive solutions.'.
I listened with care to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Despite all the fine rhetoric, the House waited in vain to hear exactly what he would have done in these circumstances if he were in my position. I am aware that we are in government, but the House and the people of Scotland are entitled to know what, if the Labour party believes that action from the Government is required and if this is meant to be more than simply empty rhetoric, a Labour Government would be doing in such circumstances. There was not a scintilla of information from the hon. Gentleman on that point.

Mr. Dewar: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: The hon. Gentleman had his chance.

Mr. Dewar: I am responding to the Secretary of State's invitation.
It is unfortunate that this decision was announced before Government influence could be brought to bear. If the Department of Trade and Industry, the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister were to see Sir Robert Scholey and put to him the sentiments that the Secretary of State had been putting in Scotland, I would see it as strong evidence of the Government's intention to reverse the decision.

Mr. Rifkind: If the action required by the hon. Gentleman, and the action that he says that a Labour Government would take, were simply that different Ministers would speak to British Steel than are speaking to it now, he cannot claim that that adds up to a fundamentally different approach to these matters.
Over the past few days, there has been great concern in Scotland, from all political parties and across the industrial spectrum, about the announcement by British Steel last week. In the light of some of the comments in

newspapers in the south and others, it might be helpful to explain why that concern is felt so deeply. There is perhaps an impression in some quarters that the only point at issue is the loss of 770 jobs. Similar announcements in various parts of the United Kingdom have not led to similar reactions.
Irrespective of political views, all of us in Scotland know that the issues involved are wider and greater than that and that the concern is, first, that closure of the hot strip mill could severely weaken, and might lead to the closure of, Ravenscraig as a whole, with the loss of about 3,200 jobs in an area of high unemployment. Secondly, if that happened—it must be seen as a possibility in the light of the announcement by British Steel—for all practical purposes it would signal the end of the steel industry in Scotland. Therefore, wider issues are involved than simply the number of jobs to be lost from closure of the hot strip mill.
An additional important factor is that over the past three years, throughout the United Kingdom, but including Ravenscraig, British Steel has been making some remarkable achievements. Privatisation, far from leading to a decline in the industry as a whole, has brought tremendous new profitability and competitiveness, for which British Steel is to be congratulated and admired. It is a remarkable achievement. It is also significant that throughout that period Ravenscraig, including the hot strip mill, contributed to that profitability and was part of the success story. That makes last week's announcement much more significant.
As far back as October 1985, Sir Robert Haslam, the then chairman of British Steel, said in evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs: "Ravenscraig is in profit." If that was true in 1985, the tremendous progress made by British Steel and by Ravenscraig since suggests that the company's profitability must, if anything, be greater rather than lesser.

Mr. Jim Sillars: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rifkind: I will do so shortly.
Not only Ravenscraig but its hot strip mill have been functioning to substantial effect. The House may recall that five years ago British Steel contemplated closing the mill but had second thoughts. It turned out that those second thoughts were better than its first thoughts, because far from the market for the mill's products declining, it substantially increased—partly due to British Steel's own success—and the mill was fully utilised.
Another aspect is the dearth of information available to British Steel's employees. I say without qualification that we all recollect the point made by British Steel to its work force at Ravenscraig a few years ago, that the best prospect for the future of the plant, including the hot strip mill, would be increased productivity and competitiveness, and good industrial relations. I do not believe that there has been one iota of criticism from any quarter about the way that Ravenscraig's work force responded. Although that does not guarantee the work force a future livelihood—nor can it—it imposes an obligation on British Steel, in the event of a very unpalatable announcement having to be made, to give its employees the reasons for it.

Mr. Sillars: The Secretary of State mentioned a remark made by Sir Robert Haslam to a previous Select


Committee on Scottish Affairs. I draw attention to the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's amendment, which
invite British Steel to explain and defend its decision".
To whom is British Steel to
explain and defend its decision"?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the people of Scotland will take it as a clear sign of the Government's determination not only totally to condemn British Steel but to examine the whole issue properly if he, the Leader of the House and the Cabinet announce this week that they have overcome the problems involved and will convene a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs very quickly, for the single purpose of investigating British Steel's contention that it is taking the right commercial decisions? It seems to me that a Select Committee would be the right instrument for judging whether British Steel's action is correct. Will the Secretary of State back that proposal?

Mr. Rifkind: I note the hon. Gentleman's comment, but I cannot help but recollect that when we last had such a Select Committee his party refused to be represented on it. Such a proposal does not sound very convincing coming from that quarter.
The hon. Member for Garscadden asked what role the Government should play in the circumstances that have arisen. I refer to the interesting and constructive remarks by Mr. Brennan, the leader of the Ravenscraig shop stewards, whom I met this morning. He began by telling me that he wanted to make it absolutely clear that the case for the hot strip mill and for Ravenscraig as a whole must be fought and determined on commercial grounds, and on those grounds alone. Mr. Brennan went out of his way to emphasise to me the point that he has made publicly: that political campaigns and emotional appeals to British Steel or anyone else would be counter-productive. It is a sign of the changing position in Scotland, as throughout the United Kingdom, that Ravenscraig's leading shop steward should have made that point.
I noted that in its editorial this morning the Glasgow Herald, which serves the west of Scotland, said:
No one is advocating old-style interventionism. Everyone agrees with Mr. Rifkind that the case has to be argued on a commercial and not an emotional basis.
It should be understood by all hon. Members that the work force and many others in Scotland believe that this matter will ultimately be determined by British Steel. There is no question of the Government issuing orders to a company, whether it be British Steel or any other, about what it should do with its plant and factory. British Steel will reach its own decision, but that is not against the interests of the Scottish economy.
The hon. Member for Garscadden is responsible for the motion on the Order Paper. Unlike the early-day motion that was tabled a few days ago, it calls on the Government to do all within their power without specifying what that might be. That is a throwback to a previous age, and I certainly could not recommend that my hon. Friends support such a motion.

Mr. Dewar: I hope that the Secretary of State will spell out what he will do and what steps he is taking to fight the case on the commercial grounds to which he refers and which he supports.

Mr. Rifkind: I wish to continue my remarks and address the points that the hon. Gentleman made.

Mr. Alex Eadie: It is an issue of commercial judgment. The convenor of Ravenscraig, Tommy Brennan, said that it is a commercial, viable industry. To assist the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the question of commercial judgment, does he recollect that he stood still when the South of Scotland Electricity Board decided to import 1 million tonnes of Chinese coal, which was grossly impractical? The market is not always correct. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that that proved a disastrous contract, which he could have stopped.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman and I will have to agree to differ on the merits of his point.
The Government are not, cannot be expected to be, and are not expected by most of those in Scotland to be responsible for trying to run the steel industry. That does not mean that the Government can simply be disinterested when decisions are announced that have significant employment implications. That does not apply only in Scotland, and it cannot be relevant to British Steel alone. If any major United Kingdom company, such as British Aerospace or ICI, were to withdraw from the United Kingdom, of course Ministers would be concerned and would wish to discuss it with the chairman of the relevant company. They would wish to hear the reasons for that and to express their concern. The company would decide what its decision should be, but Ministers must be concerned.
I say to the House and to those commentators in the south who have expressed disagreement with such an approach that that would be relevant irrespective of which part of the United Kingdom was affected. British Steel, as the amendment states, should recognise the concern that has been expressed and explain and defend its decision. If it believes that there are justifiable commercial grounds for a decision that would have significant and serious implications for the economy in an important part of Scotland, it is not unreasonable to expect it to explain its reasons, especially to the work force. I will certainly be urging it to do so.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: rose——

Mr. Rifkind: May I continue? Many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. The more that I give way, the fewer hon. Members will be able to do so.
The hon. Member for Garscadden said that Ravenscraig is of great importance to the economy of Scotland. As I said in the Scottish Grand Committee, and it is important to emphasise it, Ravenscraig is crucial to the well-being of the people of Motherwell and to the economy of Lanarkshire because of the employment implications. It has significance and implications for the wider Scottish economy, just as any other major employer does. It is not the largest employer in Scotland, and Labour Members do a disservice to the cause that they wish to advocate by overstating their points. There are a substantial number of large employers in Scotland who make a useful and valuable contribution to the Scottish economy. One thinks of Ferranti with 6,000 employees, the Rosyth dockyard with 5,300 employees, Rolls-Royce with 4,960 employees and similar companies.

Mr. Ernie Ross: How many steel mills?

Mr. Rifkind: By all means let the Opposition emphasise the serious and severe implications for the Lanarkshire economy and suggest the implications for the wider Scottish economy, but they know as well as I do that the importance of Ravenscraig is similar to that of IBM, Ferranti and other companies of a comparable size. It is not appropriate to suggest that different fundamental considerations apply.
Only one in 300 employees in Scotland works at Ravenscraig—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am sorry, but if the Opposition think that exaggeration and emotion help their case, they are doing a disservice to the people of Ravenscraig and I will have no truck with it.

Dr. John Reid: No one denies that there are bigger employers than Ravenscraig in Scotland. But can the right hon. and learned Gentleman name any other concern which, by its closure, would withdraw 50 per cent. of the freight transport from British Rail, almost 25 per cent. of the electricity consumed and a huge amount of fuel and cause such massive repercussions in terms of services throughout Scotland as would Ravenscraig? I doubt whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman could find one such concern.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has a good case, but he must not exaggerate it. He referred to the use of electricity, but he should know that 1·5 per cent. of the total output of power in Scotland goes to Ravenscraig. Ravenscraig is as important as any other customer would be. The hon. Gentleman must not spoil a good case by exaggerating it. I do not in any way intend to underestimate the importance of Ravenscraig, but I will not be tempted into suggesting that somehow the future of the Scottish economy depends on one Scottish plant.

Mr. Dickens: I hope that I shall be helpful. Because of the social consequences and differences between the contracts with British Rail, the Scottish electricity authorities and so on, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the management of British Steel could negotiate keener prices with these companies that depend so much on Ravenscraig, Ravenscraig could again become a commercial consideration?

Hon. Members: It is.

Mr. Rifkind: As my hon. Friend the Member for Littleworth and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) will realise from the response to his intervention, the point at issue is whether at present there is a good commercial case for maintaining the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig. We hope that British Steel will provide proper information on that point.

Mr. Michael Grylls: rose——

Mr. Gavin Strang: rose——

Mr. Rifkind: I should like to continue my remarks because I am conscious that many hon. Members wish to take part.

Mr. Dewar: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way on his latter point?

Mr. Rifkind: If I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, I should have to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for

Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang). I must ask the hon. Member for Garscadden not to insist.
The hon. Member for Garscadden asked me about contacts that we have had with British Steel over the past few months, so it might be helpful if I put them on the record. There have been meetings with Sir Robert Scholey at ministerial level, a meeting between my officials and the chief executive and ministerial and official correspondence with the company. There have also been telephone contacts between my officials and British Steel, both at plant management level and with the chief executive. During that period, I instructed my officials to prepare a paper making the commercial case for further investment at Dalzell in the context of British Steel's current review of plate strategy. A decision to expand Dalzell would, of course, have consequences for the future security of steelmaking at Ravenscraig. It can be seen, therefore, that over the past few months we have had ongoing contact with British Steel about its operations in Scotland.
Three weeks ago, I asked Sir Robert to come to see me to discuss various matters—in particular, the Scottish Office paper on plate mill investment. He replied that he would be willing to do so but that he particularly wished to see me on 15 May as his board was meeting the previous day and he wished to inform me of decisions likely to be taken by his board. I was concerned by the implications of that and asked Sir Robert to come to see me before the board met. We had an informal meeting on 3 May, but he gave me no information then regarding the proposals that were likely to be put to his board. Nevertheless, I asked him whether the board would be considering plate mill investment as it affected Dalzell but he said that a decision on that was unlikely for some months. I made it clear to him that, if the board considered the future of the hot strip mill at that meeting, I hoped that, given its contribution to British Steel's profitability, the mill would not be closed as that would have implications for the future of Ravenscraig as a whole and I would find it necessary to express my views in the event of such an announcement. Sir Robert quite properly declined to comment on what his board was about to consider.
My next meeting with Sir Robert was on 15 May. The suggestion that the Scottish Office has had no contact with British Steel over the past few months is completely bogus.
I have been asked whether there might be an alternative purchaser for British Steel's assets in Scotland. Hon. Members have referred to the commitment in the prospectus, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The shop stewards themselves have emphasised that that is not their first option. They wish British Steel to continue to have responsibility for its assets at Ravenscraig, and that is a view that many will share. It would be helpful if British Steel could say whether it believes that the circumstances referred to in the prospectus, in which it would contemplate an alternative private sector purchaser for its assets, now pertain. If British Steel does not believe that that stage has been reached, it would help if it would outline the circumstances in which such arrangements would apply and it would also help if British Steel could confirm that it sees itself as remaining committed to such a course. We must be clear that, for that option to be worth considering further, it is necessary not only that there should be a willing seller but


that there should be a potential buyer. If there is a potential buyer at home or abroad, it would help our continuing debate if that interest made itself felt.

Mr. Dewar: During our exchanges following the private notice question on Wednesday, the Secretary of State said unambiguously that he deplored the decision that had been made and that he sought to have it reversed. Is that still his position, and how does he intend to achieve that?

Mr. Rifkind: It is indeed still my position. Everything that I said to the House last week remains exactly and without qualification my position. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.

Mr. Grylls: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that all Conservative Members believe that he is acting entirely honourably in taking his present line and seeking more information from British Steel about its proposals? None of us would do any less for our constituencies. But will he bear in mind British Steel's record in job creation, given that since 1976 British Steel has created 45,000 new jobs at Corby, Consett, Sheffield and Shotton, where there had been huge job losses? New jobs can be created if the closure finally goes ahead.

Mr. Rifkind: Of course my hon. Friend is correct, and there are good precedents to suggest that if, unfortunately, jobs are lost in a locality—even in an area of high unemployment—it is not the end of the world. Having said that, one hopes that that can be averted in the first place because there is a significant time lag in creating new employment or attracting it to the area and, in the meantime, significant unemployment results. Our main objective is to establish whether British Steel will be prepared to reconsider the decision that it announced last week.
We must all be realistic. We cannot assume that the representations will succeed. As Secretary of State for Scotland, I have a responsibility to consider the implications for Motherwell if the hot strip mill closed next year. Accordingly, on a contingency basis, I am asking the Industry Department for Scotland and the Scottish Development Agency, together with the other relevant interests including local authority and private sector interests, to consider what could be done to encourage new employment and investment in Motherwell in the event of the hot strip mill closing—[HON. MEMBERS: "You are giving up."] No, it is not a question of giving up. Opposition Members would be the first to criticise in nine months' time if the campaign to save the hot strip mill did not succeed and if the Government had done nothing to anticipate that possibility. I want to be entirely frank with the people of Motherwell. We know and Opposition Members know perfectly well that there can be no guarantee for a campaign of this sort. My responsibility is to use the facilities available to anticipate one possible outcome and, on a contingency basis, to plan what that would involve. I make no apology for that.
We will also want to explore with British Steel the statement that it made last week that the company will take positive steps through British Steel Industry Limited to assist in the creation of new jobs in Motherwell. Clearly, that would he an important component.
Of course, our primary desire is for British Steel to respond to the concern that has been expressed. If it cannot explain and defend the decision that it announced

last week, we will be delighted if it reverses that decision. There is already a precendent for British Steel doing just that: three years ago it reversed an intention to close the hot strip mill and that was found to have been a wise change of mind because the mill went on to high productivity and to contribute towards the profitability of British Steel's operations. British Steel had second thoughts then, and I very much hope that it will have second thoughts now. That would benefit the future of the people of Motherwell and Lanarkshire, and it might also make an important contribution to British Steel's ongoing profitability.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me early in this debate. I am also grateful to you and to other hon. Members on both sides of the House for your good wishes following my recent heart operation. I am sure that hon. Members will understand if I do not stay for the whole debate.
The closure of the great Ravenscraig works and Dalzell works in my constituency would be a grievous blow to Lanarkshire and to the whole of Scotland, with the loss of 10,000 jobs and £100 million a year in income. The social consequences do not bear thinking about. It would not be the death of the local community, nor the end for the steel workers of Ravenscraig. They are too fine workers, there is too great a strength and vitality in the local community for that. But it would be a painful and bitter 15 years of the kind that we hoped was behind us. Over the past 15 years, we have already lost three times the number of steel jobs that remain. The case for a comprehensive redevelopment programme for Lanarkshire is there already.
No steel workers, certainly not the steel workers at Ravenscraig and Dalzell, see themselves as working in a national symbol, still less an industrial museum. They see themselves as producing efficiently a useful commodity for a fair wage. They would not be there if their work was not economic and commercially viable. They do not need to be told that it is the economic and commercial case that has to be argued.
It is not my intention to apportion blame. It is my duty to ask what can sensibly be done, and to call for it to be done. The Secretary of State has said British Steel has not provided any details as to why it believes that the closure of the hot strip mill is necessary. That is true. But the underlying strategy of British Steel has been clear since the closure of the cold strip mill at Gartcosh. Although it is public information, neither the privatisation prospectus of British Steel nor any of the stockbrokers' circulars gave the capacities of the different stages of steel production in each of the major works. It was left to the Arthur Young report, commissioned by Motherwell district council, to spell out the underlying strategy of British Steel, which would be carried to its logical conclusion if British Steel was constituted as a private monopoly producer, with its monopoly power in the United Kingdom strengthened by the higher transport costs from elsewhere in the European Community.
In strip products, the bottleneck lay in continuous casting at Port Talbot and Llanwern. Ravenscraig pioneered continuous casting in British Steel flat products, and long ago achieved 100 per cent. continuous casting. The commissioning of the continuous casting extensions at Port Talbot planned for early in 1991 would mean that


British Steel could then attain its peak 1989 levels of output without Ravenscraig. Now, with British Steel's announcement of the further continuous casting at Llanwern, all three strip mills will have 100 per cent. continuous casting by 1993, putting the final question mark over Ravenscraig.
In the current review of plate strategy, the lowest cost solution would be the redevelopment of the Dalzell heavy plate mill. Scunthorpe knows that it is not capable of rolling greater thicknesses of steel. But that deal option would be ruled out if Dalzell could not rely on a continuing supply of slabs from Ravenscraig. The prior announcement of the run-down at Ravenscraig appears to be a move to pre-empt the decision on plate strategy. In fact, the decisions are interdependent. The reality is probably that British Steel is putting them to its board separately to ease their acceptance.
In 1989, British Steel worked flat out, yet there was a record £20 billion deficit in Britain's balance of payments. Since then, the prospect for final demand for steel in the United Kingdom has increased with the expansion plans of our depleted motor industry, promising the biggest increase in vehicle production of any country in the Community. The European Commission has concluded that it is possible for steel plants to operate at lower levels of average capacity than previously assumed. The idea that "it is possible to maintain steadier" demand by restricting capacity does not work, since customers lost at the peak do not return at the trough, and suppliers abandoned at the trough will not oblige by supplying at the peak.
The first question, therefore, is whether 1989 steel capacity to which British Steel proposes to restrict itself without Ravenscraig strip products is consistent with the restoration of economic growth and the balance of payments in the United Kingdom.
The smaller vessels and specialised plant at Ravenscraig have enabled it to produce difficult-to-roll products like electrical steels which have not been economic at Port Talbot and Llanwern. It is widely expected that if British Steel acquires Klockner in Germany, it will source such special steels from there, and cease its production in the United Kingdom. The second question is therefore whether the restriction in product range without Ravenscraig will further weaken Britain's competitive position.
Both those questions will have been considered by British Steel. If its decision is to be questioned on the ground of competition policy which the present Government and all Governments must have, as a monopolistic or restrictive practice, the mechanism for doing so is the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the United Kingdom, and the European Commission. The formal and informal review would almost inevitably have both a United Kingdom and a European dimension. But, as most Ravenscraig products come under the treaty of Paris, the primary formal responsibility for competition policy in this case would probably lie with the European Commission. The European Commission regulatory regime has certainly been moving away from restricting competition and capacity to expanding it, as with the planned ending of

voluntary restraint agreements on imports of steel by 1992, but it would be expecting too much to rely solely on that approach.
The third question is technology. The continuous casting of 9 to 12in thick slabs, now operating at Ravenscraig and still being extended at Port Talbot and Llanwern, is an obsolescent technology. The new technology is thin-slab casting, with continuously cast slabs 2in thick going straight into a slimmed-down hot mill, and coming out as hot rolled coil only 0.lin thick, with little work for a slimmed-down cold mill to do to reduce the coil to a typical 0·04in thick cold rolled strip of the kind used for car bodies. Furthermore, the strip is superior, very fine grain steel, as a result of the more rapid cooling than is found in the present thick-slab technology. The mills are smaller, but considerably more sophisticated than conventional hot and cold mills.
The pioneering thin-slab caster is now being run in by the Nucor Corporation at Crawfordsville, Indiana. An informative article on it appears in the current May edition of Metal Bulletin Monthly, the leading international journal of the steel industry. The expected cost reduction over thick-slab steel is a decisive $50 to $75 per ton, and energy savings are substantial. The Nucor plant uses electric arc steel, which limits the purity of the steel to that of the scrap used. But the process is operable on basic oxygen steel in an integrated steel works, though its introduction will require a serious but manageable development effort. Sooner or later, integrated steel works will have to come to grips with this new technology.
Ravenscraig is well suited to be the pioneer plant for the introduction of the technology to integrated steel making because it is large enough to introduce an effectively new strip product to world markets, while its relatively small vessel size and the need to upgrade and replace the present finishing end make it suitable as a development plant. There are certain aspects in which it looks as if Ravenscraig's continuous casting experience could already improve on Nucor practice. The development would be complementary to the investment planned at Port Talbot and Llanwern.
The Government should offer British Steel this option for Ravenscraig, as a pioneering development plant, in addition to its present roles, essential in any production complex, as the swing plant and the maker of special products. It is not a soft option.
While the Economic Community state aids code bans subsidies, it allows support for investment involving research and development, which would certainly be the case here. Other European countries support civil industrial research to a greater extent than we do, and the record shows they benefit commercially. It is fully economic for Governments and the European Community to enable private firms to go beyond the short term and conservative practices which so many firms believe their shareholders require of them. There is no reason why such a development at Ravenscraig should not be a joint venture between British Steel and other European, American or Japanese companies. All face the same problem of introducing this important new technology.
There is much technical and commercial investigation to be done before such decision can be made. The Government should seek the full participation of British Steel, which I believe would be forthcoming. I have a letter from Mr. Martin Llowarch, chief executive of British Steel, confirming that thin-slab casting will have a major


effect on strip products. If I am wrong, and British Steel will not co-operate, the Government should go ahead with other steel companies. It would be best if the necessary investigations were started by this Government, but against the timetable which British Steel has set out, it would not be too late to initiate such a development after the election.
This is not the first time that I have suggested a major development project to a private British steel company. Nearly 25 years ago I suggested to the Steel Company of Wales—before nationalisation—that it should develop the world's first adaptive computer control system for its cold mill. A young engineer whose first job in the steel industry was on that project is now the works director at Shotton.
I speak as the Member privileged to represent the constituency that contains Ravenscraig, but as Opposition spokesman on science and technology I believe that this is the kind of industrial development project which any Government should be prepared to back after full investigation. I would say to my constituents that we have learned not to trust people who offer us guarantees in a world where we are accustomed to having to win the hard way, but I firmly believe that this readiness to embrace the future is the best route for us to pursue.
British Steel has a task of human and not merely financial reconstruction—I am thinking not of social obligations, but of the morale, capability and enterprise of the people whom British Steel will need to employ in the future. They will wish to respond to the kind of challenge that I propose, and I believe that they will.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members in welcoming back to the House the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) after his recent operation. As always, the House listened intently to him because he speaks with an unrivalled personal knowledge of the industry and was most constructive. We all extend to him our best wishes for a steady, continuing and full recovery.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred to some of the reports about Ravenscraig in the English press. I was surprised by the tone of some of those comments, about which it is worth saying two things. First, no one has been calling for a subsidy, as was alleged. The hon. Member for Garscadden did not call for a subsidy—I do not know what he was calling for, but I shall leave that aside for the moment. There is simply no question of the Scottish interest, or of Scottish steel workers, Scottish Members of Parliament or the Government seeking a subsidy. Secondly, the reports seemed to suggest that the position taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was unexpected, unusual or incompatible with the principles that the Government have adopted in their approach to industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Government have rightly rejected old-style interventionism, which has had such disastrous consequences for many parts of Scotland as for other parts of the United Kingdom. However, to reject interventionism is not to argue that when major decisions such as the one we are considering have been announced industry and Government are inhabiting wholly different worlds. That is an absurd proposition.
That is as true of the Department of Trade and Industry as it is of the Scottish Office. One of the Sunday newspapers rightly referred to the limousines of the captains of industry queueing up at 1 Victoria street—the headquarters of the DTI—and commented, "They must be talking to somebody."
Yes, management must manage, but to accept that proposition is not in any sense to accept that there is some law of management infallibility. My right hon. and learned Friend rightly said that in 1987 British Steel nearly closed the strip mill at Ravenscraig. That was followed by three years of record production.
Let me give another constituency example. Hon. Members will recall the campaign about the Armitage Shanks tubal works in Barrhead. On that occasion, my hon. Friend the Minister of State asked the holding company to defer the redundancies to allow a full study of constructive alternatives to take place. That position was fully and publicly endorsed by the Prime Minister. My right hon. and learned Friend's position is perfectly correct, and it is wrong to suggest that he has taken a unique stance that is incompatible with previous Government decisions.
If British Steel is to be persuaded to change its mind, two things must happen. First, there must be a united and sensible response from all concerned. Partisan points have been made in the debate—it would be surprising if they had not—but, broadly speaking, Scotland has so far given a united response to the announcement. Secondly, as my right hon. and learned Friend rightly said, British Steel will be persuaded to change its position only by commercial facts and figures, and perhaps by the constructive suggestions made this afternoon by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South. It will not be persuaded by ranting and raving—however satisfying such activity may be to hon. Members.
During the past few days, some Opposition Members seem to have been obsessed with studying every statement made by every Minister or spokesman to see whether minute observation can detect textual or syntactical differences between what was said on different occasions. They remind me of the mediaeval scholastics who spent so many years arguing about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin: their activity is about as useful.
I do not wish to stir up passions in other parts of the United Kingdom by making remarks about the Welsh, but for a long time there has been a suspicion that the decisions of the senior management of the company—now and before it was privatised—have been biased in favour of south Wales and against Ravenscraig. That may or may not be correct, but the feeling exists regardless. That is why I argued—as did the hon. Member for Motherwell, South, with greater expertise—for the break-up of British Steel on privatisation, and why I support the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker).
Of course the Secretary of State was right to say that we must not take our eye off the ball, and that our priority must be to put forward a rational case to encourage British Steel to change its position. He was also right to announce today contingency plans for the regeneration of Lanarkshire in the regrettable event of the decision going ahead. I was astonished that Opposition Members jeered that decision. Do they not want contingency plans? Do they think that there is an absolute guarantee that the decision can be reversed? There is no such guarantee.
We must face up to the possibility that a decision may already have been made to close Ravenscraig in the long term. Although I have no knowledge that it has been, we must recognise that it is a possibility.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: If the Secretary of State's initiative goes ahead—whether or not the strip mill closes—it is likely to produce enormous benefits for Lanarkshire with the introduction of new industry.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. It does no one any good for Opposition Members to deride the efforts made throughout Scotland, by people of all political persuasions, to regenerate areas that have faced major closures. If the decision has been made, the sooner British Steel fulfils its obligations to offer Ravenscraig for sale—if it has no further use for it—the better. However, that is not, and cannot be, the priority for the moment. It is better for that possibility to be faced in a year's time than in 1994, when I suspect there will be no possibility of a buyer coming forward with sensible proposals.
The entire House will agree that the trade unions have reacted with determination, and also with great common sense. They have the right to expect the House to act with the same common sense.

Dr. John Reid: It is a testimony to the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) that there are few speeches that are worth getting out of a sick bed and coming to the House to hear.
The Secretary of State for Scotland referred to passion, anger and emotion. It is inevitable that there will be some of that today, partly because of the importance of the Ravenscraig plant to the entire Scottish economy, partly because of the pride in the efforts of the Ravenscraig work force that has existed for many years—a professional pride shared by a cross-section of Scottish opinion, regardless of political persuasion—and partly because survival has never been easy for Ravenscraig or its work force, but has had to be fought for and won, sometimes at an immense price in terms of self-sacrifice and effort. However, there would be no identification, interest or attachment on the part of people throughout Scotland—highland crofters, border farmers, manual workers and professionals from the lowlands and the west of Scotland—without that passion. There is emotion too: no group of men and women have fought for so long with such vigour, dignity and sheer common sense as the Ravenscraig work force.
When the Secretary of State warns us against emotion, I hope that he realises that it is not always negative emotion. I make no apology for not adopting the clinical approach of the mercenary advocate on behalf of Ravenscraig. However, both he and my good friend Tommy Brennan will be pleased to know that, although passion and emotion will be involved, they will not be the substance of our argument this afternoon. That would be to demean the efforts of the work force, who would be the last to indulge in sentimentality or to seek charity. The Secretary of State knows that, as he met them this morning. He must also know that, contrary to the

poisoned opinions of some London leader-writers for whom Motherwell appears to be a faraway town—a town about which they care little and obviously know even less—the case for Ravenscraig has never been based on sentimentality. It has been based on an appreciation of hard facts of commercial and industrial importance—facts relating to industrial productivity and industrial performance as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South outlined in far greater detail than any other hon. Member could the economic and industrial alternatives that may be considered. In view of some of the myths, inaccuracies and half-truths that have been stated, I shall reassert several simple facts.
First, last week the chairman of British Steel did not announce merely the closure of the hot strip mill; implicit in every detail was the closure of the whole Ravenscraig plant. That announcement was predictable and, indeed, predicted not only by my hon. Friend and me, but in the Arthur Young report which was commissioned by Motherwell district council, was widely available and was ridiculed by Ministers in 1987–88. Although the closure may have been predictable, it was not inevitable. It could have been avoided if the Government had heeded the warnings before and during privatisation.
I do not wish to spend time on recriminations. I mention that fact only because British Steel's so-called guarantees in December 1987, as I said at the time, were more a timetable for the execution of the plant than anything else. It is clear from the announcement of the closure of the hot strip mill that it is a timetable to which the chairman of British Steel is keeping exactly. It implies the closure of the whole plant in 1993–94. That is what we are fighting against today. We are fighting not only for the 1,000 jobs directly or indirectly related to the hot strip mill, but for the 2,500 employees over and above those to whom Bob Scholey gave notice last Wednesday. If Bob Scholey wins his case, we will also be fighting for the Dalzell plate mill. Nobody who knows anything about steel believes that he will leave Clydesdale tube works on its own, 400 miles from the rest of British Steel's operations. Therefore, let us be clear about the importance of the announcement about the hot strip mill. If Bob Scholey wishes to blow the Scottish steel industry to bits, the Ravenscraig hot strip mill is the trigger that he is using.
Secondly—this has been covered in a dispute, more academic than real, between the Secretary of State and me—the Ravenscraig plant is crucial not only for Lanarkshire, but for Scotland in terms of freight, transport industries, road and rail, the Clyde port authority, electricity and fuel. Thirdly, the hot strip mill is not a dispensable luxury to either the Ravenscraig plant or British Steel. For the past three years it has been working to capacity and, as the Secretary of State said, producing steel of high quality. It is important to remember that it has overcome the tremendous difficulties of producing high-quality steel, which cannot easily be replaced by alternative production in high-volume plants within British Steel. Until last Wednesday, the mill was commercially viable and in the absense of detailed information to the contrary it must continue to be considered commercially viable.
Fourthly, Ravenscraig is not only commercially viable, but one of the most productive plants in Europe. The Japanese and many others use it as a measure of productivity and a yardstick for economic efficiency man hours per tonne. At Ravenscraig workers are producing


and operating on a figure of 2·33 man hours per tonne. That is the best and most efficient figure not only in British Steel and the United Kingdom, but in the whole of Europe. Every productivity record at Ravenscraig has been broken and every target set by the management attained. The workers at Ravenscraig have not been given the right to continue by Sir Robert Scholey; they have earned it.
Fifthly, all that has been achieved despite immense obstacles placed before the work force in terms of inadequate investment, unfair preferential loading, intermittent production pauses and, always, the morale-sapping suspicion that, whatever the effort and results, they will remain on Black Bob's blacklist for eventual closure. Let me make it clear that neither I nor anyone else in any way associated with Ravenscraig resents investment in other plants. That investment is the instrument of security for thousands of dedicated workers. We are saying that the same long-term security has been earned by the work force in the Motherwell plant.
Sixthly, if British Steel management has been wrong—the Secretary of State intimated that—at times it has been infamously wrong in its forecasts of future demands. That is why the research undertaken at the behest of Motherwell district council may prove invaluable to our cause. I do not say that British Steel has been alone in its forecasting errors, but forecasting is a vital element in the present decision. There is a strong case for arguing that there is no over-capacity within British Steel and, indeed, that the so-called over-capacity has been built in to justify the closure. Hon. Members may ask why. Surely it is not merely because of the prejudices of the chairman of a large corporation. Let none of us forget that British Steel is a monopoly producer. It was privatised as a monopoly, despite the arguments of Labour and Conservative Members. The reduction in capacity within British Steel can be viewed as reasonably as a measure for price increasing as for cost cutting. For that reason, I commend to the Secretary of State the suggestion of Mr. Hamish Morrison of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) that a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should be seriously considered, lest British Steel is allowed the freedom to abuse its monopoly to the detriment of all its United Kingdom consumers. Alternatively, the matter should be referred to the European Commission, as my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South suggested.
There is every indication of a strengthening of demand for strip steel products. The North sea oil industry is undergoing the first stages of a new revolution. Every indicator suggests that the car industry stands on the brink of a new upsurge. The deterioration in condition and decrease in numbers of our merchant fleet demands urgent attention. I name but three areas of potential expansion. Given those signs, the price increase incentive to British Steel and its history of forecasting, it would be a rash man indeed who would be prepared to take at face value the assurances of the chairman of British Steel.
Finally, the steelworks and strip mill are particularly well placed to provide the products for expected future demand. As I said earlier, it has been an ironic quirk of what some consider to be the unfair development plan a propos Ravenscraig that it has become the plant that produces high-quality, difficult-to-make steels. If the hot strip mill goes, it is extremely doubtful whether steels of such difficulty and quality can be produced by any other

high-volume plant within the present corporation. That would be a loss not only to Motherwell and Scotland, but to British Steel and our balance of payments.
The Secretary of State asked what could be done. There are options open to the Government and to Ravenscraig. Hon. Members have mentioned restrictive or monopolistic practices and the possibility of a reference to the Office of Fair Trading, the MMC and the European Commission. There are avenues which the Government could consider. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South outlined Ravenscraig's capacity to produce high-quality steels, the need for research and development, the demands of developing technology and the future appropriateness of Ravenscraig for thin-slab casting.
An independent Scottish steel industry has been mentioned and, although I do not underestimate the problems in terms of capital input, the finishing side at Ravenscraig and difficulties with Clydesdale, it is an option. The Secretary of State and his colleagues have mentioned an enforced sell-off. All such options would be closed to Ravenscraig if British Steel were allowed to close and remove the hot strip mill from the site. That is why I unashamedly believe that the maximum political unity on this issue is not only appropriate, but essential. I commend that approach to everyone in the House. In case my argument is viewed with suspicion by some, I also commend to them the editorial in this morning's edition of the Daily Record which has, as so often in the past, its finger on the pulse of Scotland.
Our motion has not been framed to suggest that we have no criticisms of the Government. We have worries and they were heightened by the announcement today of the meeting held on 3 May—the first time it has been mentioned by the Secretary of State. However, because our overriding priority is to achieve the greatest possible consensus in defence of the Ravenscraig plant, the issue is not and should not be a matter of personal reputation, party advantage or personal advance. We will never be forgiven if we make it so. That does not mean that we should forgo an examination of all the available options, but it means having the maturity and wisdom to realise that if we cannot speak with one voice in opposition to the British Steel decision, none of the possible options has a likely future.
I am disappointed by the Government's response today. Our motion intentionally avoids criticism of their previous stand. It is liberal, some would say too liberal, in omitting to mention what some consider as previous errors on the part of the Government. It is almost word for word, as was previously mentioned, the motion that Scottish Conservative Back-Benchers rushed to sign in their zeal to be identified with Ravenscraig's case less than a week ago. The Government, however, have found themselves unable to support the sentiments expressed in the motion. People outside will ask why. Are we to believe that the Government, who found British Steel's decision deplorable last week, now find it less so five days later?

Mr. Rifkind: indicated dissent.

Dr. Reid: I am glad to note that the decision is still regarded as deplorable. Are we to understand that the call from Conservative Back-Benchers to reverse the decision last Wednesday has become one to acquiesce to it? That is what their refusal to support our motion in the Lobby tonight will mean.
What are we to make of the Government's amendment? We have all heard of the importance of the three Rs, and today we have seen the confusion between the two Rs—Rifkind and Ridley. One half of the amendment, presumably the Scottish Office half, invites British Steel to explain, presumably to its work force, the commercial grounds on which its decision was taken. That is fine as far as it goes, but the other half of the amendment negates that as it insists that the issue is the exclusive business of British Steel. That part obviously emanated from the Department of Trade and Industry, although its Secretary of State has not even bothered to turn up today or even to put his name to the amendment. Once again he is presumed dead, missing in inaction.
The one thing the Government amendment does is to distil the impression, unfortunately prevalent since the closure was announced, of confusion, division and vacillation in the Government. I take no satisfaction from saying that and I wish that that was not the perception gained. The position of the Secretary of State is unenvious. I have no reason to doubt his sincerity when he says that he deplores the British Steel decision—even if I did have reason, I would be inclined today to suppress my suspicions. However, I and others, including the people of Scotland, have every reason to doubt his assertion that he carries with him a Cabinet united in deploring the decision of British Steel and committed to reversing it. That doubt is a grave handicap in the battle to save the hot strip mill, but it is an even graver handicap for the Secretary of State. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot command the support and confidence of his Cabinet colleagues in his fight for Ravenscraig, he will command it in precious little else of value to the people of Scotland.
This morning the right hon. and learned Gentleman met Tommy Brennan and, according to news reports, he assured him that he "wholeheartedly supported" the fight to save the strip mill and ultimately the Craig. Tonight the eyes of Scotland will be upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues. I hope that they do not fail to live up to the expectations created by the impression they have already given. If they do, they will be failing not only Tommy Brennan and the workers of Ravenscraig, but Scotland.

Mr. Bill Walker: I listened with great interest to the speeches of the hon. Members for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) and for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid). I agreed with much of the speech of the hon. Member for Motherwell, North, but I was saddened that, at the end, he made some narrow points. I was also saddened that, when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) opened the debate, he did not give way to me on a fundamental and important part of the Opposition's motion, which calls on the Government
to do everything possible to reverse a closure
All I wanted from the hon. Gentleman was an explanation of what he meant by "everything possible", as my interpretation of that phrase may be different. That is why I cannot support the Opposition's motion. Given the speeches of some Opposition Members, "everything possible" could mean the renationalisation of British Steel. It could mean anything, so I cannot support the motion.

If the Opposition asked whether I supported the efforts to get British Steel to reconsider its decision, the answer would be yes. If the Opposition asked whether I believed that the Government should do everything they could within present legislation and the European Community, the answer would be yes.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, South is a remarkable and courageous man to come here so soon after his operation. I only hope that his constituents realise what he has done today. He made one of the best speeches that I have ever heard on the matter, which is a highly emotive and difficult one. He put across difficult technical points in a unique way. I have no knowledge of the steel industry, and it was interesting to listen to fundamental, important technical points being explained in a manner easily understood by those of us not technically qualified or experienced. I found his speech moving as well as easy to understand. The hon. Gentleman, perhaps more than anyone, deserves the Ravenscraig decision to be rethought.
I have no technical knowledge, but based on the information available to me, it is clear that, if the hot strip mill closes, it will inevitably lead to the rest of the British Steel plants in Scotland having a limited life. That is a realistic way in which to look at the situation—it is not an overstatement, nor am I being over-dramatic. One need only study the investment that has gone to south Wales for many years to realise that the steel industry is no different from any others. If such investment goes to one plant, one area or one sector, it is obvious that that one sector will be in a much stronger position in terms of competition and modernisation than the rest of the industry.
I commend to the House the attitude of the shop stewards and the work force. I have always said that Ravenscraig should be judged by its performance in the market place. Anyone who suggests that Tommy Brennan and the other shop stewards in the work force have not responded to all the challenges and tasks with which they have been faced would be distorting the truth. They have done far better than anything that they were asked to achieve. Hon. Members should be seen to support workers who behave in that way.
The future of Ravenscraig and the other Scottish steel plants must be decided by the marketplace. It must be determined by business men making tough, realistic commercial decisions. I take that view not just of Ravenscraig, but of any other operation in the marketplace. I repeat that I believe that the work force at Ravenscraig have earned the right to be treated properly by their employer.
How can British Steel ever hope to motivate its work force in the future if it is judged to have behaved badly or not given its work force the sort of information that any sensible, enlightened employer would give people when decisions affecting their future are being made? That was why I had no hesitation in signing the early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North. I believed that it was right to condemn British Steel for the way in which it carried out this exercise.
I have made it quite clear why I cannot support the motion in the name of the Labour party and its leader. I cannot support a motion that calls for "everything possible" to be done in terms that are understood by the Opposition. That was why I thought that the hon. Member for Garscadden, who did not allow me to intervene in his speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] If hon. Members


believe what Tommy Brennan and others are asking for, there is no merit in trying to gain narrow political points in such a debate.
I have never made any secret of my views on the marketplace, privatisation and other matters. My condemnation of British Steel is for the way that it has treated the Ravenscraig work force. I shall not in any way withdraw that condemnation, because I believe that Tommy Brennan and his colleagues have earned the right to be treated properly. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, British Steel has once before reviewed a decision, so it is not unrealistic to think that it may do so again. It is also right that British Steel should be required to reconsider any of the needs the work force might have if the hot strip mill were to close. It is important that those 770 people should not be left with no future.
This debate is one of the most important that we have had for a long time on Scotland's future. There is much more to it than just the economic importance. If it were only the economic importance, we could use delightful figures to get round it. However, there is more to it than that. There is the lack of competition for British Steel in the United Kingdom and the need for greater competition. That is why British Steel must be asked now—we should not leave it—to tell us what it meant by its pledge.
Did British Steel mean it when it gave the undertaking that it would sell off its Scottish plants if it saw no future for them? If it meant that, the time to sell those plants is when they are going, profitable concerns and people in the marketplace are prepared to invest. The time to do so is not after a thousand cuts, when they have been made uneconomic and non-viable. That is why I believe that one pressure that the House should put upon British Steel today is to ask it what it means by that pledge. If it cannot convince the House, Tommy Brennan, others in the work force and the hon. Members for Motherwell, North and for Motherwell, South, with their detailed knowledge of the industry, that there is a future and it has investment programmes that secure a realistic future, we should send it a clear message: "Honour your pledge, put those plants on the market and let the marketplace decide the future." Let us have some real competition in the United Kingdom; then perhaps we shall hear British Steel singing a different tune.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I agree with the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that this is a crucial debate. The small number of English Members present, some of whom wish to participate in the debate, will, I hope, listen to the wider thrust of the debate. I hope that they will recognise that we are talking not simply about the need to secure an important, continuing investment in the Scottish economy, but about the need to secure the continuing success of a whole industry that has been profitable, and a plant that has made a substantial contribution to the success of British Steel as an entity and deserves better treatment than it has received to date. It has been living with this threat for far too long.
The importance of Ravenscraig to the Scottish economy is not in dispute, at least not among Opposition Members. The Government got into slight difficulties when they argued that it was important to Lanarkshire, but not the whole Scottish economy. Steel is the

underpinning of an industrial economy, and ripping steel out of the heart of the Scottish economy is effectively to abolish the platform on which it has been, and should be, built. It does so ironically at a time when the potential market for steel from Scotland is growing and is likely to grow in the coming years.
The hon. Members who were making sedentary comments about this factor have left, but it is invidious to suggest that it is all right to close down a steel mill because British Steel will be able to attract alternative employment into the district in a short time. We all know—it is especially true of central Scotland—that the trouble is that the jobs that come in to replace the jobs lost are in no way comparable in quality, earning power or the contribution that they make to the local economy. To talk simply in terms of numbers is wholly inappropriate.
More important, it must be made absolutely clear that the reason why this closure is so offensive and unjustified is the contribution that Ravenscraig has made to the return to profitability of the British steel industry. It is worth stating that that contribution was placed on record by none other than Sir Bob Scholey and Mr. Stewart, the head of the strip division, who made clear to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on 21 July 1988 just what a constructive and positive role Ravenscraig played in the recovery.
In a moment of hot temper, Sir Robert Scholey revealed his prejudice against Ravenscraig, from which we are now suffering. He has never made any secret of the fact that he wanted to close Ravenscraig. It is unfortunate for him that Ravenscraig has proved profitable, productive and successful. To date, he has been unable to close it, because it has confounded all his prejudices against it.
In reply to a question from me on 21 July 1988, Mr. Stewart said:
Ravenscraig has made a very important contribution in the recovery, because of its modern equipment in the steel plant … currently the Ravenscraig steel works is making a substantial contribution, because of its modernity, and the Ravenscraig stip mill is loaded to 15 shifts".
Sir Robert Scholey said:
we have valuable assets in the Ravenscraig works for which we have an ongoing need … Ravenscraig is a great block: steel plant and mill.
Those were the words of Sir Robert Scholey, who is now so anxious to close Ravenscraig, yet they are evidence that it was a plant that was crucial to bringing British Steel to the level of profitability that it has now achieved.
The Liberal Democrats have consistently taken the view that, at the time of privatisation, a separate Scottish-based steel company should have been created. That would have secured the future of the Scottish steel industry; at least it should have, because it would have been done on a viable base. It would have created competition for steel within the United Kingdom and removed the tension in the industry between steel unions and between the interests of Scotland and of Wales. The work forces would have been working for separate companies with separate strategies, carving out separate niches for themselves in the marketplace.
It has been our contention that a degree of competition should be explored. It remains a matter of considerable puzzlement to me that Ministers do not seem to accept their responsibility to promote competition in the
marketplace, which they are happy to lecture us about at other times. On 22 February, I asked the Prime Minister whether she accepted


that, on the ground of competition alone, the time is right for British Steel's monopoly to be ended and for an independent steel industry to be established, based in Scotland? Would that not best serve the interests of competition and of the Scottish steel industry?
The Prime Minister replied:
The best guarantee of a successful steel industry has been privatization … The chairman of British Steel has recently reaffirmed that. British Steel also gave the assurance that if it did not need Ravenscraig at some future date it would be prepared to sell it to another buyer. That assurance stands and I wish Ravenscraig well."—[Official Report, 22 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 1062.]
The point at issue is that, if British Steel is allowed to close the hot strip mill—to follow the logic through—in due time there will be nothing left that anyone will want to buy. British Steel as a monopoly producer should not be able to determine what it sells, when it sells and on what terms and conditions it sells; the fact that it can shows a total failure of competition policy. So I welcome the intervention by Hamish Morrison of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), suggesting that the matter should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I shall certainly write to Gordon Borrie, Director General of Fair Trading, to suggest that he looks into that proposition.
As the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) has said, there is a clear possibility that British Steel is seeking to restrict capacity to force up prices—in simple terms, to abuse the monopoly position that privatisation has given it. And it is doing so at a time when the market potential is significantly greater.
It is absurd to believe that British Steel will willingly promote the establishment of a competitor. There is a legitimate role for Government intervention to establish such a competitor if that is the only way of securing the interests of the consumer as well as the strategic interests of the British economy. Some hon. Members from south of the border seem rather cavalier about this: the fact is that the element of the Scottish steel industry for which Ravenscraig is especially well equipped—the North sea oil industry—is on an upswing which is expected to continue for the next decade.
In those circumstances, the decision to close Ravenscraig and ultimately to phase out the whole plant is a decision to abandon that market to foreign competitors, at a time when we have a £20 billion balance of payments deficit. Should not the Government have a view on that? Should they be so sanguine about it?
It is not too facetious to suggest that the logic of the Government's position is that, if British Steel decided that it could not maximise its profitability using steel capacity in the United Kingdom and making its investment here, and decided instead to invest in Korea, presumably the British Government would allow that and take no steps to intervene apart perhaps from remonstrating with the company at a few ministerial meetings. Is there no industrial strategy, no commitment to ensure that there is a strategic bottom line for steel—the more so since we can produce it competitively and efficiently?
The Government, who believe in the marketplace, have already embarrassed themselves by privatising too many monopolies. They should show themselves willing to stand up and force those monopolies to face competition at home and abroad. That is a legitimate basis on which this Conservative Government could intervene within the

terms of their own philosophy, and I challenge them to do so. They should also have a view about the strategic base of an industry that we cannot do without, such as steel. I should have thought that servicing the North sea oil industry, with its special steel requirements, was an area in which we should be involved.
Finally, the Government should recognise that they must show more concern about our balance of payments. British Steel should not be allowed to make a bad situation worse merely because that happens to suit its investment priorities and profitability requirements. Ultimately, an independent Scottish steel industry might be the best way forward, and it could be secured as long as British Steel was not left to monopolise the industry.
I welcome the fact that the Committee for the Defence of Scottish Steel has agreed that all options should be pursued and that it will be seeking to gather information that might help to bring about—or at least explore the possibility of—an independent Scottish steel industry. I too accept the need for all-party co-operation to stop this decision and to ensure that every option is explored so that, for the good of Britain and the British economy, the Scottish steel industry will continue to flourish and enjoy an investment base for a long time to come.

Mr. Mick Buchanan-Smith: I do not want to prolong the debate by reiterating what has already been said. I fully acknowledge the seriousness of the issue and I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has just said. We are not just considering the future of Ravenscraig; we are considering something much wider.
I am certainly one of those who believe that if Ravenscraig goes, the future of the Scottish steel industry will have an enormous question mark over it. The issue is even broader than that: I find it difficult to contemplate a modern industrial economy such as Scotland's without a stake in the steel industry. That longer-term element is important, quite apart from the immediate repercussions for those who live in the area and for the economy of Lanarkshire.
I appeal to my colleagues from south of the border. We are dealing with a problem much wider than the mere closure of a single plant. I beg my hon. Friends to understand and sympathise with this broader view. I am sure that if they lived in an area with an economy like that of Scotland they would share my concern.
Secondly, I reiterate what others have said: we must get at the facts, and I do not have confidence that British Steel will provide them unless we put on pressure. I point out to my hon. Friends from south of the border that that is the main point. If they have greater confidence in British Steel than I have, well and good. Let them put pressure on British Steel to provide the facts and show that our case is wrong.
When I was responsible for the offshore oil industry in the North sea I am sure that many hon. Members will acknowledge that I endeavoured to increase the opportunities for British industry, but one of my greatest disappointments was British Steel. Time after time, fabricators, engineering companies and others would tell me that they could not improve the British content of their projects because, for the basic steel content in the fabrication job, they could not get a bid from British Steel


or, if they got one, the quality or delivery dates were wrong. Often, therefore, steel came from as far away as Japan because British Steel did not take the commercial opportunities on its doorstep.
This is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is absolutely right to pressurise British Steel on this. I have no confidence that it is not turning its back on a commercial opportunity. It is right that the whole House should be united against that, and I hope that my English colleagues will unite with us to ensure that British Steel produces the facts on Ravenscraig's commercial position.
It does not matter whether British Steel is nationalised or privatised, and I say that not wishing to widen the debate. One of the reasons given by British Steel for not being able to take advantage of opportunities in the North sea was that it was not given sufficient approval for the investment that was required to produce what was needed in the North sea. That is a criticism not only of my own Government but of previous Governments.
I had hoped that following privatisation there would be more investment and that more opportunity would be taken of what the market place had to offer. I totally support my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland when he says that we need to get at the commercial facts and that British Steel must justify its decision. Those are the overriding and fundamental objectives and I hope that everyone will unite to achieve those ends. As second best, I would support the proposition advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). If British steel is not prepared to make a go of Ravenscraig and the Scottish steel industry it should step aside and give others the opportunity to do so.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North said, it is easy for a monopoly company such as British Steel to bring about death by a thousand cuts to this section of the steel industry in Scotland. It is easy to whittle down here and there until at the end of the day one is left with an industry that is clearly unviable and in which there may be no private commercial interest.
I accept that it is for British Steel to make the ultimate decision. If it persists in that decision I shall certainly look to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, to the Prime Minister and to their colleagues in Cabinet to put the strongest possible pressure on British Steel to ensure that a structurally viable steel business is put on the market for those who may be prepared to take advantage of the commercial opportunities which undoubtedly exist in Scotland.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I draw to the attention of the House that it was on the recommendation of the Office of Fair Trading in the not altogether different circumstances of the Atlas steel foundry in Armadale that, because of the actions of a large English company, the matter was referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. There have been two rather favourable judgments in the court of Lord Milligan. I raise those points in support of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention and I hope that appropriate note has been taken of it because it reinforces the case advanced by many of us in the House.
My last point is rather more difficult to make but it is as important as those that I have already made. It deals with the simple question of public responsibility. Some people have spoken as if a company such as British Steel or any large company has a responsibility only to its shareholders. That is not my view of morality in public life. People in business have a responsibility that goes wider than their responsibility to shareholders. First and foremost, they have a responsibility to the workers whom they employ. In this case British Steel should have taken those workers into its confidence and told them exactly what was happening.
I have been concerned with business of one sort or another, mostly small businesses, all my life. I do not know of any small business or business man whom I respect who does not consider in his decisions the community in which he lives. In the village where I was brought up there was a privately-owned paper mill which is, alas, now closed. In all the decisions taken by that paper mill there was some consideration of the effect on the community, on the workers and on the economy of the area. British Steel is in public life and has a moral responsibility to the community to explain what it is doing and to justify it. I do not say that just because British Steel was formerly nationalised because the same argument applies to all major companies such as IBM, Boots, and Glaxo. That responsibility must not be ducked, and so far British Steel has ducked it. I condemn it for that, but thank goodness my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has not ducked his responsibilities.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: There is a spirit of consensus in the House but I cannot go totally along with it because of some worrying aspects about the action or inaction of the Secretary of State for Scotland in this matter. In the seven months since last winter the Secretary of State failed to take up with British Steel that which he knew was coming and which he knew would affect Ravenscraig this year. He failed to take up with British Steel the importance of Ravenscraig to the Scottish and the British economy. In reply to a private notice question last week he failed adequately to answer why he had not done that.
Today the Secretary of State for Scotland told us that he had a meeting with British Steel on 3 May at which he made representations. The words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) last Thursday will be on the tombstone of the Secretary of State's political grave. My hon. Friend talked about the "missing weeks" and "dead days" during which the Secretary of State's inaction would perhaps be seen as having played a crucial role in the demise of Ravenscraig—if the closure goes ahead.
I listened with pleasure to the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). His was the sort of speech that should have been made by the Secretary of State for Scotland because there is a role for morals in business and public life. I noticed some Conservative heads nodding during the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
I remind the Secretary of State for Scotland of some of his comments along those lines. At a meeting with union leaders on 31 November 1989 the Secretary of State said that he would not regard a routine drop in steel demand as excusing British Steel from its undertaking to him two years ago to keep Ravenscraig open until at least the mid-1990s. He said that he did not see privatisation as having altered his role "in any significant sense". The Secretary of State always had a role in seeing how British Steel operated in Scotland, and especially at Ravenscraig, and privatisation did not alter that role. However, he is now saying that the decision is totally commercial and that that is all there is to it.
He also said in his November meeting with union leaders that his responsibility for the Scottish economy gave him legitimate concern for the actions of major employers in Scotland. I certainly echo that statement because it echoes the speech by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside. In The Scotsman of 30 November 1989—although The Scotsman says that it was on 31 November-the Secretary of State is reported to have said that the normal ups and downs of the market would not be seen by the Government as justifying closure. He said:
It was well understood that by 'market conditions' nobody was talking about some dip in the market … The term was clearly meant to refer to some catastrophic fall in demand that could not be contemplated in other circumstances.
Where is the justification for British Steel's present stance?
Scottish Labour Members and the work force of British Steel feel that there is an investment bias against Ravenscraig. Hamish Morrison, chief executive of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), said:
A ten-year investment famine and the dismal failure to win a significant share of North sea business can give no confidence in a continuing commitment to Scotland by British Steel".
The Secretary of State has done nothing to counteract that bias against the Scottish steel industry.
In the past three to five years, the figures show a dramatic increase in steel imports, with a resulting impact on the balance of payments, on employment, and on the British steel industry. What have the Government done to balance that? The outlook for demand shows, particularly in the North sea sector, the possibility of a rise in demand for steel in the mid-1990s. British Steel may contradict that, but its forecasts have not been too accurate.
My hon. Friends the Members for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) and for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) have spoken of the direct effect that closure will have on employment in Lanarkshire. I represent Cambuslang, which has in it the Clydebridge steel plant, which is a sister to the Ravenscraig-Dalzell complex. Clydebridge takes the plate from Dalzell and performs specialised finishing treatment, including quenching and tempering, and is one of only two such facilities in Europe. The Clydebridge works are also unique in having a plasma arc cutter, which cuts the steel without changing its molecular structure and leaves it ready for welding. That is typical of the specialised skill in the Clydebridge plant.
Over the past 15 years, the Cambuslang area has had nothing but dramatic job losses. We have shared with the Glasgow, Shettleston constituency the effects of the closure of the Clyde ironworks and in Cambuslang itself the Hallside steelworks have closed. There have been

dramatic reductions in the number of jobs available at Clydebridge itself, and only 150 people work there now. Only this year, the Redpath Dorman Long steel stockholders closed. I used to work in the Hoover factory, which 15 years ago employed 5,800 people, but now employs only 1,000. The Cambuslang area has been devastated. Although it is within the Glasgow boundaries, one feels that it is part of Lanarkshire. A number of its people are employed at Ravenscraig so there will be an effect on them quite apart from the direct consequences of closure on Cydebridge itself.
The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside said that some English Conservative Back Benchers had spoken out against the closure of Ravenscraig. My hon. Friends the Members for Motherwell, North and for Motherwell, South have mentioned my next point, but perhaps it comes more forcibly from someone like me who sees the value of the British state, and who believes that it is unique, and should be kept because it serves the needs of the people. If the closure of Ravenscraig goes ahead, it will signal the beginning of a social move in Scotland away from the desire to remain part of the Union with England and Wales.
I firmly believe in the British state and will always work for it because I believe that we should reduce barriers, not build them. However, Conservative Members should have no illusions about the attitude of Scottish people if this goes ahead. It is up to the Secretary of State to show the Scottish people that there is something to be gained by being part of the Union. He must deliver this to the people of Scotland, not just the people of Ravenscraig, not as a totem and not as a symbol of industrial virility but as a sign that we have a Scottish steel industry as part of a modern industrial society. If he does not, Conservative Members who regard themselves as part of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party will be shown by the pages of history that they have sown the seeds of disunity between Scotland and England.

Sir Hal Miller: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) in expressing my conviction of the benefits of, and my adherence to, the Union, although I might differ from him on the extent to which the Government have delivered in support of that Union. Some of my hon. Friends might feel that we have delivered a great deal too much. However, I do not want to broaden our debate on Ravenscraig.
I should declare an interest as a consultant to the steel division of Glynwed Ltd., which conducts rolling operations. However, I have neither sought from the firm, nor has it given me, any information of relevance to the debate.
I want to explore the concept of a Scottish steel industry, as opposed to a United Kingdom steel industry. I have with me some rather interesting figures about the extent to which Scotland depends on metal manufacture and the metal goods industry, as compared with my region of the west midlands. Whereas 5 per cent. of employment in the west midlands, representing over 102,000 workers, is in metal goods, in Scotland the figures are 1 per cent. and 17,000 workers. In metal manufacture, the figures are 1·6 per cent. and 31,000 workers in the west midlands as opposed to 0·6 per cent. and 11,500 workers in Scotland.
When I add to those figures the fact that output at Ravenscraig is preponderantly directed outside Scotland, I find some difficulty in understanding the concept of a Scottish steel industry as opposed to a United Kingdom steel industry. I accept that steel is a basic industry, but we have a steel industry in the United Kingdom. It is being fortified and modernised, and I rejoice in that. However, I find it difficult to believe in the concept of a uniquely Scottish steel industry serving a Scottish market, in the light of those figures.
I understand that concept less when I reflect that there used to be a uniquely west midlands private steel industry, but it was put out of business when British Steel was subsidised, largely as a result of the Labour party's failure to close the so-called Beswick plants. It wanted to keep a larger capacity than the market could take and was prepared to subsidise ad infinitum. The only result was to put out of business the private steel plants in the west midlands, and eventually to bring British Steel almost to its knees.
I am no apologist for British Steel. I resigned my minor position over the issue of British Steel being subsidised to put private firms out of business. Loud have been my complaints that British Steel has been subsidised—to get more topical—to give unfair assistance to Sheffield Forgemasters as opposed to the private firm of Walter Somers. I am certainly no apologist for British Steel, but it is slightly unfair to continue describing the company as one that operates a monopoly when it has only 60 per cent. of the market.
I would not be adverse to British Steel being asked to put up its Scottish plant for sale, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). That is a splendid idea. If a company wanted to take on that responsibility and felt that it could make better use of British Steel's assets, I would very much support such a development. Nevertheless, I return to the point that the outcome would still not constitute a Scottish steel industry. The operation may be located in Scotland, but certainly its market is not there, for the reasons that I have already given.
I am looking for a level playing field. We in the west midlands do not feel that we have been playing on one. All our expanding industries were directed or redirected to Scotland under the industrial development certificate policy, thus weakening the west midlands' industrial base, with no gain to Scotland.
Scotland still enjoys higher subsidies from central Government. If one examines regional assistance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nothing to do with it."] Yes, I am going to talk about assistance per head of population. Last year, it totalled £30 per head in Scotland and only £5 per head in the west midlands, despite the fact that household incomes are £4,500 in Scotland compared with £4,000 in the west midlands.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen speaks about the Government delivering on the Union. They are delivering a higher subsidy to the Health Service in Scotland, making a much greater investment in its infrastructure, and providing a higher grant to local authorities in respect of the community charge. I am confident that the Government are more than delivering in maintaining the Union. I am only asking that there should be a more level playing field.
I see no point in trying to save Ravenscraig at the expense of another plant in the United Kingdom. There are no grounds for interfering with the commercial management decision that has been made, and there is no cause for different rules to apply in Scotland than in the rest of the Union.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I call Mr. Jim Sillars.

Mr. Jim Sillars: rose——

Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You would not expect me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to question the Chair's right to call speakers in whichever order it chooses. However, I shall be grateful for your assurance that you will bear in mind the specific constituency interests of right hon. and hon. Members, and the relationship between Gartcosh, which I represent, and the whole Ravenscraig scenario.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall certainly bear that and all other factors in mind when calling right hon. and hon. Members to speak.

Mr. Sillars: The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) argued that if a country exports most of the products of its industry, it cannot claim ownership of that industry. If one follows the logic of that argument, it must be so that Saudi Arabia does not have an oil industry. Scotland has fishery, whisky and electronics industries, and the bulk of their products are exported. Nevertheless, they are extremely important in strategic terms to the Scottish economy.
Every time that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove rises to his feet in the House, or appears on radio or television, some right hon. and hon. Members welcome his intervention, because he clearly expresses the views that we have held for some time about the value of the so-called United Kingdom.
The view held by the Scottish nationalists, which is shared by the Liberal Democrats, is that we would prefer Scotland to have an independent steel industry. Not everyone here knows that in Scotland—but I exclude certain Conservative Members—the shop stewards in particular have it as a priority to seek to reverse British Steel's decision concerning Ravenscraig. Given the extreme importance of the debate, we bow to that decision on this occasion—always reserving the right to state our position when we consider that it is relevant and necessary to do so.
If I can get the attention of the Secretary of State and of the chairman of the Tory party in Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), I return to the point that I made in an earlier intervention about the need to establish a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs now, with the specific objective of investigating British Steel's decision—particularly given the invitation extended in the Government's amendment for British Steel
to explain and defend its decision
and to provide information.
The Secretary of State responded to my intervention with a cheap debating point. He said, quite fairly, that Donald Stewart and Gordon Wilson had refused to serve on a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I acknowledge that, and I personally, and my hon. Friend the Member for


Moray (Mrs. Ewing), regret that they took that action, which we regard as being mistaken at that time. However, they would not have vetoed—nor would they have the power to veto—the setting up of a Scottish Select Committee, yet that is effectively what is being done by Conservative Members.
The Government amendment will be passed tonight because the English legions will be trooped in. The House will then be inviting British Steel——

Ms. Margerie Mowlam: What a silly man.

Mr. Sillars: Does the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) want to intervene?

Ms. Mowlam: No, it was me who was calling the hon. Gentleman a silly man.

Mr. Sillars: Does anyone else wish to intervene? Apparently remarks are being offered only from a sedentary position, so I shall continue.
The Government are asking the House to challenge British Steel to defend its position. To whom will it make that defence? The House does not have a suitable instrument of examination for investigating the company, and we cannot trust the Government. I quote from a letter dated 23 February sent to kin Lawson by the Minister of State, Scottish Office:
I welcome Sir Robert Scholey's recent confirmation that the statement which he made in December 1987 concerning the future of the Scottish plant
which refers to his statement in the prospectus—
still stands and that if there were to be any change in this position in the future, all those concerned would be properly consulted and notified.
Earlier this afternoon, the Secretary of State told the House that when he met Sir Robert he did not think that it would have been appropriate for Sir Robert to have told him about matters that the board was about to discuss. How can we trust the Government to engage in a proper examination of British Steel's defence even if it is prepared to advance a defence'
We require instead the resources and authority of a Select Committee, which can call on British Steel witnesses to come before it and be properly examined so that the full facts may be properly ventilated. Anyone who knows about the limited resources available to Opposition parties will be aware that a Select Committee is vital to ensure proper, genuine, detailed examination of what is claimed to be British Steel's position.
It worried me a little that the Secretary of State prayed in aid Tommy Brennan. I join the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) in not entirely going along with the consensus this afternoon. The Secretary of State claimed that Mr. Brennan told him this morning, "It's a commercial, not an emotional, issue." The right hon. and learned Gentleman implied in his interpretation of that remark that Tommy Brennan and the Ravenscraig workers are pushing aside all other considerations except British Steel's definition of what is commercial. I believe that the Secretary of State misinterpreted Tommy Brennan's remarks to him this morning.
I certainly cannot agree with the argument that the closure can be judged only on the commercial decisions as defined by British Steel. It will narrowly define what it regards as commercial criteria. I do not agree with the hon.

Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who says that the market should decide. Has he never heard of a rigged market, particularly for an organisation that has almost monopoly production? British Steel's long-term aim is to get rid of its Scottish operations and to utilise some assets by selling them second hand in parts of the international community, thus eliminating any possibility of competition from north of the border.

Mr. Bill Walker: rose——

Mr. Sillars: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman; he has intervened several times. We are talking about an organisation that can rig the market.
I was delighted to hear the speech made by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), who properly lectured the Government about community responsibility. Let us take the national interest into account and measure it against British Steel's narrow definition of what is commercial. Let us take the closure of Gartcosh, which it told us was commercially unviable because it was a long distance from markets in the United Kingdom. Gartcosh's production amounted to 500,000 tonnes a year. Last year, British Steel imported 10 times as much from places further from the United Kingdom market than Lanarkshire.
This afternoon, we are joining everyone in demanding a reversal. We should all acknowledge that we face formidable obstacles. British Steel is a private company. It can claim that in law, as distinct from morality, it is responsible only to its shareholders. It is a cash-rich private company. The WBS Phillips and Drew assessment says:
The balance sheet is outstandingly strong with net cash of an estimated £180 million after allowing for the Walker acquisition plus investments worth considerably more than the £489 million book value.
There is no danger of British Steel having to approach the Government or another external organisation.
British Steel's market strategy has been clear from its investment strategy. In the current capital programme, not a brown penny has been earmarked for Scottish plants. Its biggest shareholders are impersonal institutions; 59·45 per cent. of its shares are held by nominees, the umbrella cover for institutional shareholders; 61 per cent. own over 1 million shares each. We are talking about people who are not terribly responsive to the arguments that we advance on behalf of the community. The Walker purchase gave British Steel the ability to buy in and fill gaps in the market if it makes a mistake in production.
I want to turn the attention of the House, particularly of Opposition Members, to the problem of the atmosphere in which British Steel will respond to our arguments. If Scholey, the board and its shareholders lived in Scotland there would be no problem in mobilising pressure against them. Every time they stepped out the house or the car, they would wince at the public agitation, but they live in an entirely different part of the United Kingdom. While many of us objected to the tone of the Evening Standard leader last week, it simply popularised what the Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Times had been saying. We will be appealing to a hostile board, and probably hostile institutional shareholders, living in an atmosphere hostile to the Scottish people.
How do we achieve the mechanism necessary to start shifting the board of British Steel? It can be done only by political power that carries a real threat to British Steel. I


must confess that the role of the Labour party is absolutely crucial. British Steel is extremely nervous about a Labour Government. Page 43 of British Steel's prospectus says:
The policies of opposition parties are the responsibility of the parties concerned. The Labour Party's 1987 manifesto set out the Party's policy for social ownership … Mr. Bryan Gould, Labour Party spokesman on Trade and Industry, stated during the Parliamentary passage of the British Steel Act 1988 that 'Opposition Members and the trade union movement strongly believe that the steel industry is most appropriately owned in a form of public ownership. We shall decide that form and the order of priorities by which it is to be secured when we return to power"'.—[Official Report 23 February 1988; Vol. 128, c. 184.]
Labour Members tell us, and they may be right, that the Labour party will form the next Government after the next election, which could be next year.

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: The hon. Gentleman was right the first time.

Mr. Sillars: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman said that.

Mr. Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman wants the Tories to win.

Mr. Sillars: No. The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. For a range of machiavellian reasons I would like to see a Labour Government, but we are seeking unity so we will set that aside.
Let us concentrate on the Labour party's claims and its motion before the House, which says that "everything possible" must be done. There could be an election at exactly the same time as British Steel is saying that it will close the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said that the Labour party would give it the appropriate priority. Is not this an appropriate priority for public ownership? If British Steel rejects the good commercial case put by the shop stewards and the people of Scotland—it will do so only out of spite—and if the Labour party, whose policy review comes out on Thursday, said "Let British Steel be under no illusions. If it goes ahead with its plans to close the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig it will be taken into public ownership by a Labour Government when it is elected next year", that would have a dramatic impact on the board of British Steel. It is the socialist answer that the working people of Scotland expect in reply to the consequences of Thatcherism.

Mr. Richard Holt: I am delighted, as an Englishman with a steel works in his constituency, to be able to take part in this United Kingdom debate. I have been trying for the life of me to work out why so many Scots get themselves worked up into such a lather about this issue.
History shows that we are talking about a steel mill that is 27 years and 20 days old. It has not been going since Adam was a boy. The steelworks has been going since before the first world war, but the strip mill was introduced on 1 May 1963. It is not a longstanding mill about which passions will be roused because it has been in operation for a long time. It was constructed for the wrong reasons. It was brought in by Harold Macmillan's Government. They believed in the possible need for additional steel mill capacity. The experts said that there should be one new strip mill, in south Wales. The Macmillan Government

decided to have two—one in south Wales and the other in Scotland, which was later named Ravenscraig—to provide employment.
That was not a commercial but an employment decision and it is on record:
The main concern of the layman is where these plants are to be located. The decision of the Iron and Steel Board and the acceptance by the companies … was that it would be a good plan to have these two installations, both capable of considerable expansion. That has made it possible to make a solution which, while no doubt not acceptable to everybody, seems a fair and reasonable solution of the rather difficult location problem.
Ravenscraig was to produce 500,000 tonnes of steel——

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Nissan is in the hon. Gentleman's patch.

Mr. Holt: The Nissan plant represents diversification from the shipbuilding industry which is being replaced in the north-east of England. That good development is bringing many jobs to the area.
Harold Macmillan said:
That was the point put to me by Scottish hon. Members and others who came to see me. All that is very much better than if we had located the whole plant in Wales."—[Official Report, 18 November 1958; Vol. 595, c. 1017–9.]
The Government, under the Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, and the President of the Board of Trade, Sir David Eccles, made those decisions to create employment.
What about Colvilles? Its forebodings in 1962 were correct. It was practically ruined because it had undertaken a project that it thought was unwise. Colvilles almost went into bankruptcy and had to be bailed out in that preliminary construction period before it made any money.
This all comes back to a commercial decision by the board of British Steel, which says, "This is the international and European market for steel." The board does not say that everything north of Hadrian's wall is inviolate and cannot be touched by the people who are charged with the responsibility for that industry. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) has come into the Chamber to hear me speak, because she was here for the rest of the debate. The redundancies in my area far exceed the 770 people who will be made redundant under the Ravenscraig proposals. People in my area have overcome that difficulty. There is a booming economy again on Teesside, brought about by the district council and other people. Just last week Derwentside council made an announcement about Consett, another strip mill which was closed with the loss of many jobs and without all the synthetic nonsense——

Ms. Mowlam: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Holt: I shall not give way because of the time.

Ms. Mowlam: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Holt: I shall not give way. If the hon. Lady had been here for the whole debate, as I have been, I should happily give way.

Ms. Mowlam: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been in and out of the Chamber over the past hour and a half. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) did not have his glasses on, so he might not have seen me. I should like to set the record straight. If I


have not just been listening to the hon. Gentleman, I have nevertheless enjoyed contributions of a much higher calibre and quality than the one to which we are listening.

Mr. Holt: Over the past hour and a half, the hon. Lady has been out more than she has been in. That is obvious to anyone who has looked at the Chamber.
What is the debate about? It is about whether pressure should be brought to bear on the board of British Steel to change its mind about its decision. What will happen if the campaign is successful and British Steel has to change that decision? One of two things will happen: somewhere else will have to suffer—it could be my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Redcar—or we will be left with a lame dog board for British Steel. The board would never be able to make any decision because it would be afraid of a repetition of the hoo-hah by Scottish Members. We are over-represented by Scottish Members in this place. Any matter that relates to Scotland immediately results in the nonsense to which we listen in these debates.
Last week it was announced that there would be a modern, clean industrial and leisure development at Consett which will employ 1,300 people in jobs that are not related to the steel industry and are not historic but futuristic. We should look forward to such developments. [Interruption.] Some Labour Members are looking at the clock and saying that I should get on. I remind them that I sat here the other night through an entire debate on the development of the Clyde port in relation to Tees and Hartlepool harbours. One hon. Member spoke for an hour and five minutes and Conservative Members could not speak. I make no apology, therefore, for taking my full time in contributing. The more the Opposition shout and scream, the more likely it is that I shall continue.
It is interesting that no Labour Member from an English or Welsh constituency has spoken. By definition, such Members must have an interest in British Steel's future and the viability of jobs in their areas. This has been a narrow debate when we should have debated many more matters involving British Steel. Apart from one or two Opposition Members, I do not think that the Opposition have bothered to look at what there is at Ravenscraig. I know that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) knows about it and I was pleased to hear him make a speech about the technical side.
The Opposition have criticised the board of British Steel left, right and centre, but the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) let the cat out of the bag when he said that it was awash with cash and was profitable and well run. This profitable, well-run organisation cost the taxpayer millions of pounds a year at one time. It now wants to expand and diversify in Germany by buying German steel plants so that the industry operates in a wider European context. Yet they talk about a 27-year-old plant as though it was the heart and soul of Scotland. It is not; it is a steel works like any other which must stand or fall like any other. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Scotland?"] The debate is about steel, not about Scotland. If we want a debate about Scotland, let us have a debate about Scotland's over-representation in this place. Scotland has far too many Members of Parliament for that country's

population and English Members are forced, by definition, to represent a great many more people than their Scottish counterparts.
It is because I represent people who work in, and depend upon, steel works that I am pleased to have been able to contribute. It is a pity that no other hon. Member from a constituency south of the border with steel works located in it has taken the trouble to contribute. A great deal of the resentment that has been expressed is synthetic and much of what has been said is no more than political posturing. I do not believe for one moment that British Steel would in any circumstances be justified in changing the decision that it has properly made.

Mr. Tom Clarke: In view of the priorities outlined by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), it does not surprise me that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) reminded me, 43,000 jobs on Teesside have been lost in the past 10 years. It should not surprise the hon. Gentleman that Opposition Members regard the decision as an extremely serious matter and an important event in the history of Scotland. The House should address itself once more to the serious problems that the people of Lanarkshire, and of Scotland more generally, face which they expect us, in turn, to face.
Earlier this afternoon I referred to the relevance of Gartcosh. It is appropriate to contrast the sacrifice of Gartcosh with the presence and excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), who personifies all that is best in Lanarkshire. His presence was a sign of the commitment that we have seen in the Lanarkshire steel industry—in Ravenscraig as well as Gartcosh—and the industry's achievements, which are there for all to see, should not be lightly dismissed. When the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs considered Gartcosh in 1985–86, most of us gave a warning that if, on the basis of commercial judgments such as those urged upon us in respect of Ravenscraig this afternoon, British Steel continued in its determination, it would weaken the prospects of Ravenscraig. Clearly that has happened. The decision need not and should not be fatal.
But even in the non-partisan spirit of this debate, I must tell the Secretary of State that it is not enough for him to tell us the limited amount that we have been told and to feel that, on the basis of his and his ministerial colleagues' records, they will not be called to account. We can fight, as we will fight, for a future for Ravenscraig and reserve the right to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has not even bothered to be here this afternoon, the Prime Minister and the rest of the Government why the priorities of the men and women of Ravenscraig and their brave commitment to the industry have not been reflected in Government policy.
The Secretary of State told us a little more than we heard last week. He told us about the fateful meeting on local election day, 3 May. But what happened during the preceding months? Around Christmas time, some of us asked the Prime Minister and, a week later, the Secretary of State for Scotland, what the Government intended to do in view of the rumours that we were hearing. We asked whether the Government would use their influence. Even then, some of us pleaded with the Government to think about using their golden share, and we were told that the


Government could not use their golden share because they had placed restrictions on its use. The Secretary of State quoted Tommy Brennan, and Tommy knows that we support him and his first-class trade union colleagues to the hilt. But the Secretary of State cannot be selective. Tommy Brennan did not campaign for privatisation and, when privatisation was achieved, Tommy Brennan did not advocate that no recognition should he given to the Scottish factors. That was in contrast to what happened in the electricity industry.

Dr. Reid: Gartcosh?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) rightly reminds us that he did not campaign for the closure of Gartcosh. The Government cannot merely go ahead with their policies and then say, "What a surprise; British Steel has told us that it is getting rid of the jobs because of commercial factors but it will not give us the reasons." I have to tell the Secretary of State that the whole thing comes as no surprise to me. There is no legislative obligation on British Steel, although it has a huge moral obligation—to which, so far, it has not responded.
I hoped that, despite the errors of the past, and although the Secretary of State seems forlorn, alone and unsupported by most of his Cabinet colleagues, the House will decide that there is a case for fighting for the Ravenscraig plant and the future of the industry because of considerations connected with productivity, economic strategy and the experience and achievements of the work force.
If that happens, we must begin by agreeing not to rewrite history. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) repeated an argument that we have seen advanced in the popular press, in England especially, which is no doubt inspired by Mr. Ingham and the advisers at No. 10. We are told that Harold Macmillan got it all wrong and that he is to be bad-mouthed. I do not recall as a youngster being a great fan of Harold Macmillan, but as a result of his decision hundreds of thousands of families in Lanarkshire and Llanwern achieved a measure of prosperity that this Government have failed to deliver. It is right that the wealth of a nation should be fairly shared throughout that nation and that productivity should be based on a sound economy in which the need for investment and a regional strategy is recognised. Harold Macmillan at least had the wisdom to see that. We need proper training opportunities to ensure that our young people in particular are given the right to work and the right to a future. Given the opportunities that we have been told are offered in Europe, why is the steel industry in Scotland and in other parts of Britain facing the problems of which we have heard this afternoon? The truth is that the Government's policies have created divisions.
Ravenscraig has shown a record commitment to production. I have heard no complaints this afternoon about profits, if they alone are to provide the motive. The work force at Ravenscraig has been shamefully abandoned because of the decision of a ruthless private monopoly. I am not in favour of giving a private or public monopoly that kind of power or influence over people's lives. There should be accountability. We should not leave those matters and the quality of people's lives to market forces alone. With proper investment and planning and a proper

strategy for the steel industry, there is a future for Ravenscraig and for Scottish steel. I hope that the House will accept that view.
I do not believe that tonight's debate will be the end of the matter. In time, the Scottish and British people 'will decide. In time, they will reject influences which represent the arrogance of intellect and the brutality of power and which history will judge to our shame.

Mr. John Maxton: I begin by paying a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). We all understand why he cannot be in the Chamber for the winding-up speeches. He made a brave and thoughtful speech which showed that he knows a great deal about the steel industry. His speech also showed the enormous strength of his commitment to his constituents, to the Ravenscraig steelworks and to the Scottish steel industry as a whole. The expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South has been recognised on the Opposition Benches for a long time. It is a pity that the Government failed to listen to him because if they had done so they would not be in this mess today.
My colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South, have spelt out a logical, economic and commercial case for the retention of the Ravenscraig strip mill. There have been no emotional appeals about unemployment and the social consequences for the Lanarkshire area. I live in Hamilton and I know what the economic and social consequences will be. None of my colleagues made that appeal. We have argued the economic and commercial case instead. Conservative Back-Benchers from Scotland also made a clear logical case. They argued strongly for the retention of the mill. It was regrettable that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), in his highly intemperate speech, attacked his hon. Friends as much as he was attacking my colleagues.
Over the weekend I read many press reports stating that the Secretary of State for Scotland was at one with his Cabinet colleagues on the issue. Having listened to the Secretary of State today and having read the amendment to our motion, I must agree with the reports. The Secretary of State has sold out to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Last week, with regard to the closure, the Secretary of State said:
I must make it clear that I deplored the decision and its implications for the work force. I am also very disturbed by the potential implications of closing the hot strip mill for the future of Ravenscraig as a whole … we shall seek to persuade British Steel to reconsider its proposal in the interests both of the company and of its work force.
In response to a question from my hon. Friend he Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), he said:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the desirability of doing that which can be done to reverse the decision.''—[Official Report, 16 May 1990; Vol. 172, c. 887–88.]
The Government's amendment to our motion does not contain those sentiments. It contains no reference to persuading the company to change its mind. The amendment contains no reference to the Government doing everything that they can to reverse the decision. The only thing that the amendment invites British Steel to do is
to explain and defend its decision;


It does nothing more than that. The only reference to "deplores" is in connection with
any attempt to extract political capital from this event".
I agree with the Secretary of State about that. The only person who has been trying to extract political capital from the proposal is the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has been playing both ends against the middle. He is trying to appear as the saviour of the Scottish steel industry while in Cabinet he caves in. He is trying to be everything to everybody and he fails to be anything to anyone.
The Secretary of State asked whether we should allow decisions to be taken on the commercial judgment of British Steel. I do not disagree with that. But that is not the only criterion that we should consider. We should also consider the economic and social consequences of the closure. However, let us consider the commercial aspect. Ravenscraig is profitable and its productivity is high. It continues to break its own records and the plant is at least as good as any in Europe. The work force is superb and its products are an essential part at present of the British Steel range, as my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South explained. There is an increasing need for steel products in the United Kingdom for car production and for the North sea.
Given those commercial considerations, what considerations can British Steel place against them? If British Steel can put up commercial considerations against the case that we have made logically and sensibly today—a case that I hope the Secretary of State will put logically and sensibly to British Steel—and British Steel says that it does not accept our argument, what will the Secretary of State do about that? It was clear from the Secretary of State's speech today that he is going to do absolutely nothing.

Mr. Rifkind: What would the hon. Gentleman do?

Mr. Maxton: If the Secretary of State would for once take the debate seriously and listen, he might receive answers to his questions. He is the Secretary of State for Scotland. He is responsible and he has the power. He must use all his power and influence to stop the closure.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maxton: It was the Secretary of State who privatised the industry and he refused to include the golden share that some of us proposed in Committee which would have stopped this exercise. The Secretary of State cannot escape his responsibility.
Does the Secretary of State have a series of meetings arranged with Bob Scholey to ensure that——

Mr. Riddick: Give way.

Mr. Maxton: I have no intention of giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Riddick: rose——

Mr. Maxton: Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you throw the hon. Gentleman out if he cannot sit down?
Will the Secretary of State at least tell us whether he will have some meetings? Has he prepared a detailed case for Ravenscraig to put to British Steel? The Secretary of State has economic and financial leverage. Has it been made

clear to British Steel that its actions are unacceptable to the Government? Will he take up the point made by Hamish Morrison? Will he refer British Steel to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Will he give whatever help he can within the terms of the European Community to assist British Steel, if it feels that it needs help over a short period to retain Ravenscraig? For example, will the Secretary of State take up the proposal on thin slab casting made by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South? That was a clear and definite proposal which, if taken up, would require Government financing to fulfil it. Will the Secretary of State investigate that option?
If British Steel refuses to change its mind under all the pressure, will the Scottish Office finance a full examination of the future of steel in Britain and in Scotland? Will it insist that British Steel makes its Scottish plants available for sale immediately so that if there is a possibility of a Scottish—or another British—steel industry it must be available as a going concern, not as a rundown industry that no one would want. Will the Scottish Office finance a feasibility study on the Scottish steel industry? Will it work actively to form a consortium in Scotland to purchase and run Scottish plants if necessary?
Those are some practical questions, and the Minister of State has a responsibility to answer them. He is the last chance for the Secretary of State to have any of his credibility in Scotland restored. The Minister of State has a responsibility to tell the Scottish people what he will do to save the Scottish steel industry. If the Minister of State can give no answers to those questions, the people of Scotland will pass their judgment upon him.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) in welcoming the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) back to the House after his illness. His personal commitment to his constituents was well illustrated by his presence today. I am sure that the whole House will wish him a continued and complete recovery from his illness.
However, the hon. Member for Motherwell, South must have been disappointed by the tone and content of the debate. Apart from his informed contribution, to a large extent it was coloured by political point scoring and nit picking, which is not in the best interests of the Ravenscraig work force. There was a notable, lamentable absence of contributions from Opposition Members of any indication underneath their high-flown rhetoric of what specific steps the Labour party would take to change British Steel's attitude. Just what would the Opposition do?
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asked about the golden share. He knows that that is not relevant to this issue. It carries no voting rights. Its purpose is to prevent a holding in the company from reaching 15 per cent. or more, and thus it is designed until 1993 to prevent hostile takeovers. The hon. Members for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) and for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred to competition and a possible reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
It is for anyone affected by or with an interest in this issue to raise the matter with the Director General of Fair Trading or with the European Community authorities as appropriate. I would not seek to dissuade anyone from


bringing it to the attention of the appropriate authorities. It is not a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State; it would be for the Director General of Fair Trading and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to determine.
I have no doubt at all that our general approach to industry is correct in creating an enterprise economy. We have seen that demonstrated in Scotland, where we now have higher manufacturing output and higher employment than ever before, even when manufacturing employment has risen in the past two years by 16,000, and that is on a broader-based and more diversified economy, with tens of thousands of jobs in new industries as a result of inward investment. But conditions change. We are right to press this matter with British Steel, because it was wrong before and it could be wrong again. Market conditions and operational conditions can change. We are right to test British Steel on this decision.
I inform my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) and for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) and readers of the London Evening Standard that Scotland is a small country with a population of about one tenth that of England. Although steel is no longer vital to the Scottish economy, contributing only about 2·5 per cent. of manufacturing output, and although unemployment in Lanarkshire has almost halved in the past three years to stand at under 11 per cent. it would still have a big impact if all the remaining thousands of steel jobs in Lanarkshire were to disappear following the decision on 770 jobs now. I would not dissent from those who argue that that consequence could flow from this announcement. Of course, they would also take too many other jobs in other industries dependent on the steel industry. We have a duty to involve ourselves.
I am not proposing that we should take new powers or seek to inject cash into the industry, which would be in breach of the treaty of Paris, nor that we should change our policy. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are strong supporters of privatisation. Indeed, I had the privilege of steering the steel and electricity legislation through their respective Committee stages. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I firmly support the hands-off approach of allowing industry to take decisions on commercial grounds. That approach is now transforming Scotland's economy.

Mr. Dewar: I have a one-line question for the Minister of State. He has not said what he will do to bring about what I understand to be the ministerial team's desired result, and that is a change of mind by British Steel. Will he now be explicit?

Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman had not intervened, he would have found that he did not need to. I intend to refer to that matter.
When a decision to close a key industry, possibly leading to the disappearance of a whole industry in Scotland, without warning, consultation or adequate explanation takes place, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has a positive duty to involve himself. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has returned from the far east, where he has been seeking to persuade companies there in their commercial interest to locate in the United Kingdom. Some time ago his Department succeeded in persuading Nissan that it was in its commercial interest to locate in the

north-east of England, assisted by about £125 million of regional assistance. I am delighted for the north-east of England that that success took place.
I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove that the regional assistance policy that so helped Nissan to locate in the north-east of England is the same regional assistance policy, subject to the same objective criteria, that applies throughout the United Kingdom.
Although I support market forces and a free market economy, I do not believe that that should be an excuse for an abrogation of duty or for total inertia. The Secretary of State has a duty to question, challenge, test, explore and probe a major industrial decision such as this. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland were right to speak out as they did last week.

Mr. John McAllion: Will the Minister of State give way?

Mr. Lang: I shall not give way; I am short of time.
A range of commercial issues should be explored with the company. For example, we should probe the proposal to reduce capacity while, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) pointed out, imports are rising, with all the implications that that has for the balance of payments.
There is the single plate mill strategy for Dalzell, on which a Glasgow university paper was prepared and submitted to British Steel and on which the Scottish Office's own paper has also been prepared and submitted. We should discuss with British Steel the implications for Ravenscraig as a whole, and the work that is being commissioned by Motherwell district council will also be valuable in making the case for investment and in considering the development of the steel-using infrastructure of the area. There is the possibility of a welded pipe mill, as proposed by the unions at Dalzell, which would also have the effect of reducing imports. There is also the possible disposal of Ravenscraig to another owner, on which we should press for detail and commitment and thus create the competition that is so dear to the heart of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars).
At worst, we should seek a better explanation from British Steel of its reasons for closure—an explanation to us and to the work force at Ravenscraig. There is also the contingency work to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred on assistance for the area in the same way as assistance was brought to Merseyside, Sunderland and Inverclyde—including, one would hope, help from the British steel industry.
The motion shows little of the real will that is necessary to establish unity of purpose of the kind for which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State called. It seems that Opposition Members have learnt nothing about the steel industry from the debacle of their 10 years of office in the 1970s. The motion calls on the Government to do "everything possible to reverse" the closure, but what on earth does that mean? The Opposition have had the opportunity, but they have not spelt that out in the debate.
Does it mean more cash from the taxpayer? In the decade from 1975, about £14,340 million at today's prices was put into the steel industry. In 1979–80, the taxpayer had to subsidise a loss of £1·8 billion—£5 million a day—and that did not secure efficiency. All it did was subsidise overmanning and inefficiency. BSC's output was at the


bottom of the league when we came to office. Anyway, a cash injection would be a breach of the treaty of Paris, and the Labour party knows it.
As the hon. Member for Govan and my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) asked, does it mean that the Opposition propose to bring back nationalisation under the guise of the weasel words of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)? Again, we waited in vain for an answer.
I remind the House that nationalisation ripped the heart out of the Scottish steel industry in the first place. It destroyed an independent, self-contained Scottish steel industry. It transferred control to London and turned the steel industry into an irreversible monopoly—so scrambled did its structure become that it could not be disentangled on privatisation. It left Scotland at the end of a branch line in each product division. That is what has led us to the parlous condition of that Scottish industry today. Nor did nationalisation save a single job. Under nationalised control, since 1974, 12,500 jobs were lost and 14 or 15 plants were closed in Scotland, several by Labour Governments, including steelmaking at Glengarnock.
Nationalisation would solve nothing and the Opposition have failed in their duty to spell out to the House whether that is the disastrous plan that they would now propose. Or do they plan some kind of updated yuppified nationalisation under the terms "social ownership" or "social control", taking powers to control, compel and direct, and grinding out enterprise in the way that so damaged the economy?
At the heart of the Labour party's rhetoric is a vacuum. The Opposition motion offers a blank page, with a blank cheque attached. That is insupportable to any responsible body or individual. What is needed is a realistic, responsible and positive approach, such as was offered this morning when my right hon. and learned Friend and I met the trade union shop stewards, and such as that taken at the weekend by the Committee for the Defence of the Steel Industry in Scotland and such as is embodied in the Government amendment.
We and they recognise that British Steel's decisions are and must continue to be for British Steel to take, based on its commercial judgment. There can be no question of a law-breaking subsidy or of seeking, beyond the powers that we have, to direct decisions. However, we have a duty to press British Steel to explain its reasons; to urge it to take its Scottish work force into its confidence and to give it the facts; to question its broader intention; and to challenge it to defend such an important and irreversible decision, with all that it could mean for the future of the Scottish steel industry.
It is in that spirit that I urge the House to reject the Opposition motion and support the Government amendment.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 301.

Division No. 217]
[7.01 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Archer, Rt Hon Peter


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Armstrong, Hilary


Allen, Graham
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Alton, David
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)





Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Barron, Kevin
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Beckett, Margaret
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Beith, A. J.
Illsley, Eric


Bell, Stuart
Ingram, Adam


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Janner, Greville


Bidwell, Sydney
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Blair, Tony
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Boateng, Paul
Kennedy, Charles


Bradley, Keith
Kilfedder, James


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Kirkwood, Archy


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Lambie, David


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Buchan, Norman
Lewis, Terry


Buckley, George J.
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Caborn, Richard
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Callaghan, Jim
Loyden, Eddie


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
McAllion, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McAvoy, Thomas


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McFall, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Clay, Bob
McLeish, Henry


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McWilliam, John


Cohen, Harry
Madden, Max


Coleman, Donald
Marion, Mrs Alice


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Marek, Dr John


Corbett, Robin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cousins, Jim
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Cox, Tom
Martlew, Eric


Crowther, Stan
Maxton, John


Cryer, Bob
Meale, Alan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Michael, Alun


Cunningham, Dr John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dalyell, Tam
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Darling, Alistair
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Morgan, Rhodri


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dewar, Donald
Mowlam, Marjorie


Dixon, Don
Mullin, Chris


Dobson, Frank
Murphy, Paul


Douglas, Dick
Nellist, Dave


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Evans, John (St Helens N)
O'Neill, Martin


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Faulds, Andrew
Patchett, Terry


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Fisher, Mark
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Flannery, Martin
Reid, Dr John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Richardson, Jo


Foster, Derek
Robinson, Geoffrey


Foulkes, George
Rooker, Jeff


Fraser, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Fyfe, Maria
Rowlands, Ted


Galbraith, Sam
Sedgemore, Brian


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Sheerman, Barry


George, Bruce
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
Short, Clare


Gould, Bryan
Sillars, Jim


Graham, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Grocott, Bruce
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hardy, Peter
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Spearing, Nigel


Haynes, Frank
Steinberg, Gerry


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Strang, Gavin


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Henderson, Doug
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Home Robertson, John
Vaz, Keith


Hood, Jimmy
Wallace, James


Howells, Geraint
Walley, Joan


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)






Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Worthington, Tony


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Wray, Jimmy


Wigley, Dafydd



Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Martyn Jones.


Wilson, Brian



Winnick, David





NOES


Adley, Robert
Dicks, Terry


Aitken, Jonathan
Dorrell, Stephen


Alexander, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dover, Den


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dunn, Bob


Amess, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Amos, Alan
Evennett, David


Arbuthnot, James
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fallon, Michael


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Favell, Tony


Ashby, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Aspinwall, Jack
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Atkins, Robert
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Baldry, Tony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forth, Eric


Batiste, Spencer
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bendall, Vivian
Franks, Cecil


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Freeman, Roger


Bevan, David Gilroy
French, Douglas


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fry, Peter


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gale, Roger


Body, Sir Richard
Gardiner, George


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gill, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowis, John
Gorst, John


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gow, Ian


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Green way, Harry (Ealing N)


Brazier, Julian
Ground, Patrick


Bright, Graham
Grylls, Michael


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hague, William


Buck, Sir Antony
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burns, Simon
Hanley, Jeremy


Burt, Alistair
Hannam, John


Butler, Chris
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Butterfill, John
Harris, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Christopher


Carrington, Matthew
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carttiss, Michael
Hayward, Robert


Cartwright, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cash, William
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, James


Chope, Christopher
Hind, Kenneth


Churchill, Mr
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Conway, Derek
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Cormack, Patrick
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cran, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Critchley, Julian
Irvine, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Irving, Sir Charles


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael


Day, Stephen
Janman, Tim


Devlin, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Dickens, Geoffrey
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey





Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rathbone, Tim


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Redwood, John


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Riddick, Graham


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Knowles, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knox, David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rowe, Andrew


Lang, Ian
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Latham, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Lawrence, Ivan
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lee, John (Pendle)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shelton, Sir William


Lightbown, David
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lilley, Peter
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sims, Roger


Lord, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McCrindle, Robert
Speed, Keith


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Speller, Tony


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Squire, Robin


Maclean, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Steen, Anthony


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stern, Michael


Madel, David
Stevens, Lewis


Major, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Malins, Humfrey
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mans, Keith
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Maples, John
Stokes, Sir John


Marlow, Tony
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sumberg, David


Mates, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Maude, Hon Francis
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mellor, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Miller, Sir Hal
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mills, Iain
Temple-Morris, Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mitchell, Sir David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thorne, Neil


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thurnham, Peter


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Tracey, Richard


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Tredinnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trippier, David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neubert, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Nicholls, Patrick
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walden, George


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Norris, Steve
Waller, Gary


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Ward, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Watts, John


Page, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Paice, James
Wheeler, Sir John


Patnick, Irvine
Whitney, Ray


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Widdecombe, Ann


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wiggin, Jerry


Pawsey, James
Wilkinson, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wilshire, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Portillo, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Price, Sir David
Wolfson, Mark


Raffan, Keith
Wood, Timothy






Woodcrock, Dr. Mike
Tellers for the Noes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Tony Durant.


Young, Sir George(Acton)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises that British Steel's investment and operational decisions are a matter for the commercial judgement of the company; nevertheless expresses its concern about the potential employment consequences of the company's decision to close the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig; recognises the considerable productivity achievements of the Ravenscraig workforce; invites British Steel to explain and defend its decision; and deplores any attempt to extract political capital from this event rather than offering any constructive solutions.

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

Dr. David Clark: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the mishandling by Her Majesty's Government of the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
This is an issue of great magnitude: potentially, it poses the greatest threat of the century to British agriculture. The possible implications of bovine spongiform encephalopathy—or mad cow disease, as it is known—threaten the existence of the entire British cattle herd. Moreover, these serious assertions ignore any possible risks—remote though they may be—of the disease being transmitted to humans. If that awful scenario were to develop, the legacy for which the Thatcher years would be remembered would not be the dismantling of the National Health Service, the privatisation of water or the destruction of our steel industry; the present Administration would be remembered simply for having permitted a new disease to emerge in the human race. However, I shall not develop that argument. I shall concentrate on the immediate issue: British cattle—alone in the world, I might add—have developed BSE, and I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that our first piority is to eradicate it as quickly as possible. The only people who can do that are the Government, but my confidence in their ability to do so wanes by the day.
Since first entering the House 20 years ago—along with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—I have witnessed many examples of incoherent and confused action, but rarely have I witnessed such incompetence, vacillation and indecision as has been apparent in Ministers' handling of mad cow disease. When the Government have acted, it has usually been a case of "too little, too late". Even the Government's own expert adviser on BSE, Professor Southwood, has admitted that
things could have been done a bit quicker",
and has observed that there is no doubt that it would have been better if we had acted a year earlier. Those are not my words, but those of the Government's independent adviser, whose opinion the Minister—rightly—highly respects.
Last week, the Minister's bizarre actions epitomised the Government's confusion. He showed all the signs of the vacillation and indecision that are his hallmark. I remind the House that this is the Minister who, ostensibly, was in charge at the time of Chernobyl and who delayed the imposing of restrictions for seven weeks. In those seven weeks, tens of thousands of lambs from areas contaminated with radioactivity entered the food chain.
The Minister spent the early part of last week showing all the signs of Corporal Jones disease—he stomped from one TV studio to another, as if auditioning for a part in a new production of "Dad's Army". All he seemed to be saying was "Don't panic, don't panic." The results were predictable. When he finally realised that, his expensive PR advisers calmed him down and he moved into the next phase of unsuccessfully trying to feed his young daughter hamburgers. I shall not develop that theme, but I counsel the Minister not to be so foolish in future.
I concede that this is a difficult issue, but I wish to analyse it coolly——

Mr. William Cash: rose——

Mr. William Hague: rose——

Dr. Clark: I shall not give way at this stage.
Among the first questions that must be answered is why the disease arose, and why only in Britain. It is interesting that when Conservative Members find themselves on the rack, all that they can do is barrack and shout abuse.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: What would a Labour Government do about the crisis? Would they ban beef? Would the hon. Gentleman ban beef? What would he do if he were in my right hon. Friend's position?

Dr. Clark: That is a fair point. I give the hon. Gentleman a guarantee that I will enunciate the steps that we think should be taken——

Mr. Hind: It was a simple question.

Dr. Clark: If the hon. Gentleman is so ignorant that he cannot accept a courteous reply, and a promise from an hon. Member that he will deal with the point, he is beneath contempt. This is a serious problem and the Minister has not dealt with it as firmly as he should have done. I shall explain in words of one syllable, so that even the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) may understand.
The generally agreed presumption is that meat contaminated with scrapie was fed to cows that developed BSE by one means or another. I shall not go into the particular physiological process. The real question is: why did it happen in the United Kingdom? The key lies in the rendering industry. Before the 1979 general election the Labour Government became aware of the problem in rendering and published tighter draft regulations. That is in the public record. Unfortunately, the new Conservative Government, following their usual practice of rewarding their friends including those in the rendering industry, scrapped those regulations. The rendering industry honestly and unashamedly acknowledged the generosity. The chairman of the United Kingdom Renderers said:
The original proposals were very expensive, but there was a distinct change of heart when the Conservatives came into office. They were happy to drop the idea of a code and settle for random testing.
Mr. Field, an executive member, went a stage further and, referring to the different technology permitted by the weakened regulations, said:
This was partly as a result of changes in animal feed techniques but the basic motive was profit.
The Government's regulations allowed that. This Conservative Administration are directly responsible for the disease appearing in the United Kingdom.
Faced with a new problem, the Government, understandably, were bemused. For 18 months following the confirmation of the disease by their own vets, they did precisely nothing.

Mr. Tim Boswell: No.

Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman scoffs. If he can tell me what the Government did in the first 18 months, I shall willingly concede the point.

Mr. Boswell: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the diagnosis made by the Ministry vets was retrospective—re-examining the information on cases which had taken place over the preceding 18 months? That is how they knew about it.

Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman is right that in 1985 the disease was first discovered by a Kent vet and that in November 1986 it was finally confirmed by the Ministry's vets. In 1988 the Government wisely appointed a committee under Professor Southwood to look into the problem. It met on 20 June 1988 and acted with commendable speed. The gentlemen were well aware of the seriousness of the problem. The very next day they sent their recommendations to the Minister, but it was not until February 1989 that the Southwood report was published.
Professor Southwood claims that some of the crucial research suffered a delay of nine months. He specifically referred to the possibility of the disease passing from mother to calf, which is the critical factor. He said:
We recommended that such an experiment be started almost as soon as we met, but it did not get under way until the report was published 9 months later.

Mr. Hague: Has the hon. Gentleman noted in the general conclusions of the report the words:
We greatly welcome the speed with which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has brought forward regulations based on the veterinary evidence and on our recommendations?

Dr. Clark: Yes, I have read the report and I commend the hon. Gentleman on his assiduity in reading it. It may be that Professor Smallwood—[Laughter.] When I said "Small", I was thinking of some Tory Members. Professor Southwood's mind may not be like a stagnant pool; it may change. The hon. Gentleman rightly quoted Professor Southwood's words, but only yesterday he said the words that I have just quoted. Clearly, Professor Southwood, with the benefit of hindsight, has changed his mind and been honest enough to say so.
Professor Southwood had a difficult task. With the slashing cuts in research staff which the Government made—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members may smirk, but thousands of research scientists in agriculture and food have been made redundant by the Government. The state veterinary service has 27 per cent. fewer vets today than when the Government took office. As a result there was a dearth of information and expertise. It is not surprising, therefore, that the conclusions in the report appear fragile today.
As the Minister repeatedly tells us, the Government's policy is based on Professor Southwood's theories, which must be seriously questioned. In essence, the Government's policy is simply that mad cow disease will in time go away. That is not a policy, but a hope and a prayer. The Government's policy is based on the premise that once the practice of feeding cattle the remains of other ruminants has been stopped and the lengthy incubation period expires, the disease will peter out. They even claim to know when that will be. They give a precise date of 1996. Some of us rather doubt that.
The Government seem to have underestimated the extent of the problem. They have nailed their colours to the Southwood figure that the number of BSE cases would be
of the order of 350–400 per month.
That figure has been exceeded easily. For the past two months for which figures of confirmed cases are available, there were on average 900 a month. Clearly, the Government have got their figures wrong. In addition, the Government have accepted Southwood's argument that the cumulative total of mad cows would be between 17,000


and 20,000. That, too, must be seriously questioned because we already have reports of more than 13,000 confirmed cases.
The basic question mark in the Government's strategy is against the assumption that the disease is not transmissible from cow to calf. If that is found not to be correct, their whole strategy fails. There are no contingency plans whatever. Yet if we examine the case calmly, we find that the Government's logic is faulty. They argue that the disease cannot be transmitted to humans on the basis that scrapie has been known for more than 200 years and, as there has been no proven transmission from sheep to humans, it is unlikely that the disease will jump from cows to humans. I can understand the reasoning behind that and I sincerely hope that they are correct, as does every Labour Member, but they have been selective in their comparison with scrapie. They ignore the fact that scrapie has passed from sheep to lambs. If BSE is similar to scrapie, as the Minister argues, there must be a real possibility that BSE will be passed from cow to calf. If that is so, the Government's strategy is absolutely flawed.

Mr. Michael Lord: The hon. Gentleman started by saying that the prime cause of the problem was alterations to the code of practice in the rendering industry. He will be aware that this is a complex scientific, biological matter and I hope that he will explain in detail exactly how those changes in the code of practice led to the present situation.

Dr. Clark: If the hon. Gentleman did not understand what I said I suggest that he reads the report of my speech because I do not want to detain the House at great length now. He rightly raised that issue in a previous debate when I dealt with it adequately.

Mr. Lord: rose——

Dr. Clark: I will not give way as that is unfair to other Members who might want to speak.

Mr. Lord: It is absolutely crucial to the debate.

Dr. Clark: I shall not give way.

Mr. Lord: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has already said that he will not give way.

Dr. Clark: It is interesting to note that once the argument gets going Conservative Members find it difficult and try to deflect it.
There is an increasing belief among veterinarians that BSE can be passed from cow to calf.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What evidence?

Dr. Clark: The hon. Lady is a practising farmer, is knowledgeable and attends all the debates on agriculture. She has asked a pertinent question and I shall name some of the vets and other medical authorities to satisfy her.
The consultant virologist, Dr. Richard Tedder, at the Middlesex school of medicine, an excellent school, is reported to believe:
It is reasonable to assume that BSE could be passed on

from cow to calf. A similar view is held by Roger Eddy, former chairman of the British Veterinary Association's farm animal committee. He also said that trials would find that calves can pick up BSE from their mothers. He clearly asserts—I hope that the hon. Member for Lancaster is listening carefully——

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am writing it down.

Dr. Clark: In that case I shall speak slowly. Roger Eddy asserts:
My belief is that vertical transmission will occur.
Even the Government's chief veterinary officer, Keith Meldrum, distanced himself from the Minister when he said:
It would not surprise me to find that maternal transmission did occur
He has also taken a contrary view to the Minister about the dangers of the disease to human health:
I cannot say that there is no risk to man from BSE. It is too early. We have only had this disease in the country for three years and the incubation period in man in cases of encephalopathies is very long indeed.
If the opinions of those vets are correct—they are just as much expert as other veterinarians—the Government's one-thread approach looks extremely flimsy. If that thread breaks we shall face calamitous consequences for the farmer and the consumer. It is not the fault of the farmers that we have BSE. They did not have any foodstuff that was labelled, nor did they provide the contaminated feedstuff.
If the disease spreads unchecked, we may eventually have to embark on a major eradication scheme that would decimate the British cattle herd. Farmers understand that. That scheme would cost taxpayers billions of pounds and lead to a shortage of beef with worsening effects on our balance of payments, which is already bad enough. Many British farmers would never recover. This is truly a case of being penny wise and pound foolish.
If the Government's strategy fails, we shall be forced to embark on an eradication scheme not only for the health of our herd, but for the simple reason that other countries will put British agriculture into quarantine. Already nearly the entire world will not allow the import of British cattle. The European Community has gone further by banning all calves from BSE cows. Our European partners are not prepared to take any risks—and who can blame them? The Germans have gone even further by banning all British beef with bones. They have not done so for trade reasons, as the Minister said, but on the advice of their scientists. I remember the Minister coming to the House to say that he would take the Germans to the European Court and do this and that, but, of course, he did nothing.
The Government should wake up to the fears expressed and protect the consumer and the farmers who are in a mess through no fault of their own. I shall suggest a coherent programme to the Government—as I promised the hon. Member for Lancashire, West.

Mr. David Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Clark: No. I promised to be brief, so I must continue.
The first thing that the Minister should do is slaughter all the calves of cows with BSE. That would limit the effect of vertical transmission. That is a sound insurance policy supported by many vets, the Women's Farming Union and, in effect, by the National Farmers Union. Secondly,


in view of the evidence that BSE has been transmitted to cats and possibly, although I hope not, to dogs, he should prohibit the use of cattle offal in pet food. The pet food manufacturers operate a voluntary ban and therefore one would have thought that they would support a statutory one, but no. When those manufacturers discussed it with me they were most alarmed at the prospect of a statutory ban. Many people will conclude that their refusal to endorse such a plan means that the voluntary ban is little more than a token gesture for many of them. Thirdly, the Government should stop feeding cattle offal to pigs and chickens.
Fourthly, the Government should make available to all bona fide scientists samples of infected animals wherever possible. No one has a monopoly of scientific knowledge about the new disease—the wider the scientific investigation the better. I regret that the Minister has so far blocked that initiative and I hope that he will change his mind today. Fifthly, the Minister should be more frank with the House and the public. On Thursday, when we finally dragged him to the Dispatch Box, his behaviour was abysmal—[Interruption.] He promised to place a full statement of the Tyrrell committee in the Library. The fact that he produced only a 25-line Government minute is little short of disgraceful and does nothing to build confidence among farmers, scientists and the public.
Sixthly, the Minister should instigate a tagging system for all calves along the lines of the system currently operating in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity today to advise farmers that they should heed the law and ensure that their movement books are up to date as that would be a precursor to any scheme for checking the movement of cattle.
My final suggestion is perhaps where we should begin. Why will not the Minister follow the specific recommendations of the Tyrrell committee for the random sampling of routinely slaughtered cattle so that we can judge the extent of the disease within the herd? The Minister has said that he has not done so because it is not a priority and he said that he always follows scientific advice. However, we know that the Minister picks that scientific advice which is convenient to him. I recommend the advice given to him by the Richmond committee to ban the sale of green top milk

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Come on.

Dr. Clark: I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment; I promise.
The Minister was advised to ban green top milk, but he ignored the scientific evidence in favour of the consumer.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Having done his best for the past few minutes to destroy the beef industry, the hon. Gentleman is trying to destroy the green top milk producers, who proliferate in my constituency and parts of Yorkshire and whose milk is found to be extremely helpful, particularly for some skin conditions. It tastes superb, is very good and all the customers want it. Now the hon. Gentleman is trying to do that in, as well as the beef industry.

Dr. Clark: I think that the hon. Lady, in her enthusiasm for green top milk, which she never hides, did not quite listen to what I said. I was not arguing the merits or demerits of green top milk. What I was actually saying

—I hope that the hon. Lady will listen—was that the Minister's scientists had recommended the abolition of green top milk, but on that occasion, rightly or wrongly, the Minister decided to reject the scientists' advice.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Quite right.

Dr. Clark: The hon. Lady says, "Quite right," but the point I am making is that the Minister picks and chooses his scientific advice.
We all know the real reason why the Minister is reluctant to do random testing. It is simple: he and the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), have insisted time and time again that no BSE cattle have entered the food chain. That was the famous belt-and-braces approach of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, of which he is so proud and about which he will tell us more this evening. Therefore, if it were found that BSE cattle had slipped through the net—as they have—the only honourable thing for the hon. Member and the right hon. Member to do would be to resign.
The Minister should desist from putting his own political career before the interests of the farmer and the consumer. The disease has the potential of a doomsday scenario. The British need, and have the right to expect, Government protection. They are certainly not getting it from this Government.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'supports the Government's determination to eradicate bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and commends Her Majesty's Government for basing its policy and actions to secure the safety of food on the best scientific advice and for the prompt implementation of the recommendations of its independent expert committees as the best means of safeguarding public and animal health.'.
I welcome this opportunity to put forward yet again the Government's clear position on BSE. First, the absolute priority for the Government is public health and the safety of the consumer. That must mean, first, that we take the best available advice; secondly, that we implement that advice completely and as quickly as possible; and thirdly, that we ensure that the public is fully informed of the detailed information that comes to us. It is for these reasons that I can repeat with confidence the chief medical officer's statement that there is no scientific justification for not eating British beef.
Therefore, the first question the House must address is whether the Government have any alternative but to accept the advice of the experts. I do not believe that any Minister could sustain a policy based upon setting aside the recommendations of our most eminent scientists and medics. So our policy must be based absolutely four square on that. But the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has claimed that we have done "nowt". Let us go through the facts.

Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will have noticed that I put a reasonable question to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)—would he, in the circumstances, ban British beef for sale to the public? Quite clearly, he did not answer the question. The clear implication of ducking That question is that he agrees with my right hon. Friend that British beef is safe for the public to consume.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. I have noted down the seven answers given, and they did not include the proposal that we should ban British beef.
BSE was first identified in November 1986, thanks to the alertness and skill of the staff at the Ministry's veterinary investigation centres and the central veterinary laboratory. That was the point at which the hon. Member for South Shields suggested that we do nothing. I hope that he will listen carefully to what I have to say. Because so little was known about the disease at that early stage, a number of research projects were immediately initiated, including work to determine its course and clinical picture, and to develop and refine techniques necessary to obtain a definitive diagnosis. Such knowledge is an essential prerequisite to determining what action is appropriate to deal with any disease.
What the hon. Gentleman suggests the Government should have done was precisely what he accused us of doing—running around, hoping for something to turn up, without knowing what we were supposed to be looking for. Instead, we did what any sensible Government would do: we immediately set up the research to enable us to act. A detailed study had been started as soon as the disease had been identified to determine its cause. Initially, a large number of possibilities had to be considered, including the use of pharmaceutical products, vaccines, pesticides, herbicides, and whether other livestock such as sheep were kept on the farm.
Further excellent work at the central veterinary laboratory enabled that list to be narrowed down to protein feed derived from sheep infected with scrapie. As soon as that was apparent, a ban was introduced, from July 1988, on the use of ruminant-based protein in ruminant ration. Therefore, it is quite clear that, far from doing nothing, the Government did the two precise things necessary before they could take action. When they had the results, they took action immediately.
From the outset, field investigations and laboratory work were being undertaken to develop a clear understanding and knowledge of the clinical picture and diagnostic techniques. It is all right for the hon. Member for South Shields now to say that he knew all about it, but he did not then. We were finding out all about it so that we could take the action we did.
There is no point in requiring notification if one cannot fully describe the clinical symptoms that enable vets in the field to be able to identify a particular disease. In the same way, until the diagnostic techniques were well developed, it would not have been possible to confirm whether or not an animal had the disease. When a clear picture emerged, the disease was made notifiable—June 1988. Yet again, we acted immediately. We got the results and acted on them.
While that work was being completed, in April 1988, my Department, in conjunction with the Department of Health, established a group of eminent scientific and medical experts, under the chairmanship of Sir Richard Southwood, professor of zoology at Oxford university. Their task was to advise the Government on all aspects of BSE, including any human health implications. Two months later, on 22 June that year, interim advice was received that, as a precautionary measure, all affected cattle should be slaughtered and destroyed.

Mr. John Garrett: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gummer: If I may finish the paragraph, I shall be happy to do so.
We accepted that advice on 7 July. All the necessary legislation and operational arrangements were agreed and drawn up within a month, and the slaughter with compensation scheme was introduced on 8 August. All the animals slaughtered are destroyed by burial or incineration, so that no part of them can enter the food chain.

Mr. Garrett: On a genuine point of reassurance, is the Minister happy with the way carcases are disposed of, with the heads incinerated but the spinal columns left in them? I understand that there is scientific opinion to say that the spinal column should be removed before burial.
The right hon. Gentleman will know that in Norfolk there is some anxiety about the dumping of no fewer than 100 carcases in a dump that is not very far from the river that supplies Norwich's household water.

Mr. Gummer: I have looked into the issue because the matter was raised with me; it is a local authority—authorised tip for various toxic substances and the like. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about the tip, I shall re-examine it, but the local authority's view is that it is perfectly suitable for these purposes.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gummer: I should like to continue, because I have something to say about these matters later in which the hon. Gentleman might be interested——

Mr. Home Robertson: rose——

Mr. Gummer: No, I want to continue.
Nearly two years ago, we acted effectively and decisively on the very best scientific advice to stop the likely source of the disease and to take affected animals out of the food chain——

Mr. Home Robertson: rose——

Mr. Gummer: I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman.
The Southwood report was published on 27 February 1989. It pointed out that scrapie, the related disease in sheep, had been present in the national flock for more than 200 years and that there had been no evidence of transmission to man. The report also concluded from present evidence that it was likely that cattle would prove to be a dead-end host for the disease agent.
As to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we have acted slowly or ineffectively, I hope that he will recall that the working party greatly welcomed the speed with which the Government acted on the animal feed ban and to implement the working party's recommendations. The hon. Gentleman therefore cannot sustain any allegation that we acted improperly or in a dilatory way without coming into clear conflict with the evidence of the Southwood working party.
The Government did not stop there. First, they agreed and implemented all the Southwood recommendations. Everything that this most eminent group of scientists asked us to do we did—and more. We did not do nowt; we did what the group asked us to do and more. Southwood did not recommend that the offal ban was necessary, but the Southwood report concluded that, if there were to be any BSE agent harboured in animals not previously known to be affected, it would be in the specified offal. We


have therefore taken out all the specified offal from all adult cattle reaching the slaughterhouse, so as to make doubly sure that consumers are protected. So once again the Government have acted to implement all that, and more than, the experts recommended.
One of the most important Southwood recommendations was the establishment of a consultative committee on research, under the chairmanship of Dr. David Tyrrell—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Shields may be talking now, but he said that the Government had done nowt. I am going through what the Government did point by point so that the public can see that we acted correctly and speedily on all of them——

Mr. Home Robertson: rose——

Mr. Gummer: I am going through point by point; when I have got through them all, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
This group of experts was set up to advise my Department and the Department of Health on research work in progress or proposed in relation to BSE and the other transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, on any additional work required, and on the priorities for further research. In fact, a major research effort had been under way since the disease was first identified. More than £2 million has already been spent, and a further £12 million has been allocated over the next three years.
Dr. Tyrrell identified three categories of research: first, research of top priority. All that is under way. Secondly, he identified research of medium priority; all that is under way, too. We are now working our way through the areas of lowest priority. Some of them are under way, but some have not yet reached the stage of working out protocols.
Of course, the hon. Member for South Shields has picked on one of the lowest priority points and suggested that it is the most important of all. Odd that it was in the list of lowest priority. Odd, too, that the Tyrrell committee has said that it does not believe that action on this proposal would be sensible at this time, because it would not be a sensible use of these facilities and resources. It is odd policy to tell me that the thing of which I am most guilty is not acting on one of the elements in the list of lowest priorities—the very aspect that the Tyrrell committee has suggested should be left on one side for the time being.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gummer: I should very much like to finish one more paragraph, and then I shall have finished my list.
The House will understand that I am keen on the research part of the process, because, if we could find a diagnostic test, we could rid the country of BSE that much more quickly. If I found additional aspects of research that we were not doing but which would make a genuine contribution, I would have them done. If the hon. Member for South Shields suggests that we should not breed from calves of BSE-infected animals, I must tell him that I have asked the Tyrrell committee to tell me what would be best.
The Tyrrell committee produced a report for me—not a very long report, but it is in the Library. As I told the hon. Gentleman, for he wrote me a letter on the subject, I expect that Dr. Tyrrell will be giving me a longer report some time soon, and I shall place it in the Library as well—just as I place all information that is given to me and on which these decisions are made.

Mr. Eric Martlew: rose——

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for South Shields does his case no good by pretending that the material is not made available——

Dr. David Clark: My charge against the Minister, as he acknowledged, is that he has not made the Tyrrell report on this subject available, although he promised to do so. Is he telling the House that this 25-line document is the Tyrrell report? If it is, can he explain why it begins:
Spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee under Dr. David Tyrrell says"?
I would have read that as the Government's interpretation of the Tyrrell report. It is a travesty of the truth to suggest that it is the report itself.

Mr. Gummer: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the facts. Dr. Tyrrell reports to me. I then publicly state exactly what he has told me—[Interruption.] I do think it very important, as we are discussing a statement by a most eminent chairman of a working party——

Mr. Martlew: rose——

Mr. Gummer: No, I shall finish what I have to say first. Dr. Tyrrell has reported to me; I have published the report—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is it?"] In the Library, and I am holding a copy of it now—[Laughter.] I hope that Opposition Members will listen carefully, because there is a whole series of other circumstances in which I am asking for further information, and I expect the working party to present its conclusions in this way. That is what I have published, and any further statements by Dr. Tyrrell will also be published.
The Opposition cannot have it both ways: if we are going to make a document public, we make it public even if it is very short.

Dr. David Clark: Is the Minister saying that this is the Tyrrell report, or is he saying that this is his interpretation of the report? It is odd for the Minister to say, "Dr. Tyrrell says …" If it were the Tyrrell report it would start by saying "My committee says …" I suggest that we are getting the Minister's interpretation of that report.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman may submit that but he is utterly, totally and categorically wrong. This is Dr. Tyrrell as chairman of the committee giving me his advice, which is what he was asked for. I have published that advice. Dr. Tyrrell will expand on it, and I shall publish the expanded advice. He will advise me on a wide range of other matters, and I shall publish his advice. The hon. Gentleman is doing the House a grave disservice by trying to hit Dr. Tyrrell in this way.

Mr. Home Robertson: rose——

Mr. Gummer: I will not give way. I will complete what I have to say about the Tyrrell statement and then give way.
It is clear that the Opposition charge that we have done nowt is wholly and utterly unfounded. The hon. Member for South Shields is attempting to suggest that which he knows to be untrue and is continuing the campaign which is based, I am sad to say, on an attempt to invent things that are not only far from the truth but have been proved out of his own mouth to be wrong.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way at last. Brevity in reports is generally welcome, but this may be the exception. Diagnosis is crucial. The Minister said that all BSE-affected cattle were being destroyed, but that is just not possible. He cannot say that, because the only way to diagnose which cattle are affected with BSE is to examine the brains of the cattle after slaughter. Why is the right hon. Gentleman still refusing to take samples from the brains of cattle slaughtered at slaughterhouses in order to establish whether what he says is true?

Mr. Gummer: I do not think the hon. Gentleman understands the purpose of that piece of research. It does not do that at all. It is suggested that some years are spent on research into what was in the brain to see whether one could find the existence of sub-clinical circumstance giving rise to BSE. I know that the hon. Gentleman is an expert on a wide range of matters. He should take it from me that the most eminent experts in the field have said that this is a low-priority matter and have asked me not to take this line of research because at the moment there are other more important things to be done. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman wants to put his personal view ahead of the clear advice of the committee.

Mr. Harry Cohen: rose——

Mr. Gummer: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to wait, because he will have an opportunity to intervene at a more appropriate time.
All the results of the research will be made publicly available because, throughout the debate, I have made it clear that the information and knowledge available to us will be made public. I intend to continue on precisely that course. Any suggestion by the Opposition that anything is hidden or locked up is entirely without foundation. I shall give two examples. Although there is no evidence of any link between spongiform encephalopathies in cats and BSE, I insisted that information regarding the Bristol cat recently diagnosed with this disease be made public.
The hon. Member for South Shields should look again at his allegation that I have prevented scientists from speaking to the press. That allegation was all over the press, and the hon. Gentleman confirmed that he put it there. It is utterly and completely untrue and I am sure that he will wish to apologise when I have completed my speech. The only advice to Government scientists which my Department has recently reiterated are departmental guidelines, which were prepared not by me or my predecessor or his predecessor but were, albeit in a more complicated form, guidelines inherited from the previous Labour Government. There has been no change in the guidance that, when a scientist or veterinary surgeon is asked for an interview by the press, he should inform the press office so that we know that the facts are there. That is what the Labour Government's guidance contained, and we have not changed it.
The hon. Member for South Shields did himself a grave disservice by suggesting that I was in any way trying to stop anyone saying anything that he would previously have been able to say. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his allegation, which has caused considerable concern to the scientists in my Department, who would not work on the basis that the hon. Gentleman has said that I suggested. If the hon. Gentleman will not withdraw,

he underlines the fact that almost everything he says merely springs from his own fantasy and is not the fact of the matter.

Dr. David Clark: May I clarify the matter? I said that Government scientists have been told not to speak to Members of Parliament or the press on this issue. The person in question, whom I have in mind, was telephoned in the middle of the night and told that. If the Minister is prepared to get a letter from the Head of the Government, the Prime Minister, assuring me that that individual will not be sacked as he was threatened, will not be reprimanded and will not have his career jeopardised, I will talk to that person to see whether he is prepared to let me name him. When we are dealing with a Government who, in their own words, are economical with the truth, I must have that from the Prime Minister.

Mr. Gummer: There is no change whatever in what I said earlier and nobody, but nobody, would have his career jeopardised in that way. The hon. Gentleman has failed to produce his evidence and has failed to withdraw. He has been shown to be a sham and his words on everything else can be judged on that.
The House would expect me to look closely at the effects of this discussion on encephalopathies. There is no doubt that it would focus attention on this class of disease. That is bound to be true of an issue that is constantly talked about, and it means that people will look even more closely at the matter. It was for that reason that the postmortem on the Bristol cat took place. Similarly, we have now confirmed the Northern Ireland case. The specific advice of the Southwood committee was that we should be particularly alert to the possible occurrence of encephalopathies in household pets. The problem facing us is that such illnesses may have no connection at all with BSE, and, indeed, may have been present for a long time. Therefore, we have a duty to the public to do two things. First, we have to be entirely open about the results of any tests on suspect animals; and secondly, we have to be very careful about jumping to premature conclusions.
This focus of attention has resulted in two or possibly three identified cases of encephalopathy in cats. Of course it would be quite wrong for us not to be very concerned about that evidence, but that should not blind us to the arguments clearly presented in last week's New Scientist leader. I hope that the hon. Member for South Shields will read that leader and take it to heart. I hope that he will take it more to heart than he has taken note of the fact that his outrageous allegations yesterday have been shown to be wrong.
The House will recognise that I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the reasons why his comments are so wide of the mark not just to get the record straight or to score points at the expense of the shadow agriculture spokesman but because, in matters of this seriousness, the crucial issue is public health. Party and personal advantage must not be allowed to interfere.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have sought to undermine the views of the experts. That is damaging, because it gives the public the impression that there is a major disagreement between scientists on this issue. The men and women who are experts in these matters gave clear advice to the chief medical officer, my Department and the Department of Health, and it is on that basis that I am able to repeat the chief medical officer's advice that


eating British beef is safe. Indeed, it appears to be on that evidence that the hon. Gentleman thinks that eating British beef is safe. Therefore, I am surprised that he has not asked those local authorities that have stopped children in their schools eating British beef to start to serve beef once again.
The hon. Member for South Shields has made a number of suggestions. His first was that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be renamed the Ministry of Food and Agriculture and that there should be created an independent food administration making its own independent statements. If we apply that to BSE, it is difficult to see how this differs from Southwood and 'Tyrrell giving independent advice, except that that independent advice is accepted by the Government but not by the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman does not want us to stick to what the experts say: he wants us to replace this with his own political opinions. His proposal smacks of that.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that we must not breed from the cows that have BSE and claims that that would speed eradication. I ask him to read again what Tyrrell says. He has specifically warned us that to do that would not necessarily speed up the removal of BSE but might in certain circumstances have the opposite effect. He has made a number of other proposals, all of which have been rejected by the scientists to whom we have turned. In an odd phrase, he spoke of the "fragile conclusions" of Southwood. He wishes to replace the conclusions of Southwood by a series of his own personal views. No Government could deal on that basis and no Government could take his line.

Mr. Lord: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gummer: No, I must come to the end of what I have to say.
The same thing happened when the hon. Member for South Shields made his allegation on rendering. He was not prepared to share with the House the detailed explanation of how he ties up any changes in Government decisions with his views on the effects of rendering on BSE. There is no doubt that had he argued his case through, point by point, it would be seen as hollow in this House as it is so seen everywhere outside it, except in Labour party circles.
All that the hon. Gentleman is left with of all his suggestions is one single change—the change of title from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Ministry of Food and Agriculture. That is at best cosmetic and at worst an attempt unworthily to evade this serious issue.
I do not want any hon. Member to feel that, once the experts have pronounced, we are not willing to go back to them again. The Government have acted throughout on what the experts have recommended. We have acted immediately, we have acted as they have recommended, and we have acted to do all and more that they have required. We are willing to go back to them again and ask them again. The House will remember that, even though my expert advice had not recommended that there should be a ban on breeding from the progeny of BSE-infected animals, I asked the Tyrrell committee to consider this again in the light of all the evidence. I have placed copies of its advice in the Library, and I have said that I will place copies of any further advice there as well.
Similarly, two months ago I asked for expert veterinary advice on the removal of brains in slaughterhouses. It has now come. This broadly supported current practices, but I am asking the Tyrrell committee to consider this, and any other aspects of slaughterhouse practices that it feels may be relevant to the problem. I reiterate what I have sad often before: that I shall always be willing to refer the issues which arise in this matter to experts, and will make their advice public.
The real issue here is that the public want to be assured that the Government have acted on the best available advice. They have that assurance. They want to be assured that the Government implement that advice in its entirety. They have that assurance. They want to be assured that the Government have taken these measures with the fullest practical speed. They have that assurance. They want to be assured that the Government are putting all the necessary resources into research. They have that assurance. Above all, the public want to know that the Government put public safety first. They have that assurance.
This debate gives us the chance to show that the Government have taken the full range of measures proposed in the best scientific and medical advice. Faced with a disease of this kind, we must expect that people can easily be worried and realise that their anxieties are difficult to dispel. That is why it is so important for those who have different views not to promote anxiety, but to put forward their views so that they may be judged by their expert peers. I am always willing to ask the experts to consider proposals that are put to me.
The hon. Gentleman's points have been so considered and have been turned down. If any have not been so considered, I will ensure that they are. I hope that those who so often speak on television will come to us first with their arguments and facts so that they may be considered by those best able to assess them—the experts in the fiend and not politicians, who are merely amateurs.
There is no evidence that the BSE agent is harmful to man. Nevertheless, the Government have taken four major measures to remove BSE-infected animals from the human food chain. They have acted to remove the specified offals from all adult cattle. They have cut off what is considered to be the source of the infection. We are investing large sums in research, and will continue to do so. This has been done on the advice of the scientific and medical experts. Therefore, unlike the Opposition, we can say with confidence that beef can be eaten safely by everyone, both adults and children. The House can give us its confidence, because what we do will be based on scientific advice, not on the theories of Labour party politicians.

Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister repeatedly refused to give way to Opposition Back-Benchers. As to bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cats, the right hon. Gentleman said——

Hon. Members: That is not a point of order.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. It is for me to decide whether the hon. Gentleman is in order.

Mr. Cohen: I am raising a point of order. The Minister said that he had received advice from the Southwood committee that special consideration should be given to


BSE in cats, but the right hon. Gentleman did not reveal the date on which he was given that advice, which is crucial——

Madam Deputy Speaker: I know now that the hon. Gentleman is not raising a point of order but a matter for debate. I call Mr. Alan W. Williams.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to follow that extraordinary bullish and brash speech from the Minister. I want to correct the right hon. Gentleman on two or three points.
The chief medical officer did not say that British beef is safe to eat. He said—and the Minister quoted him accurately the first time—that there is no scientific justification for not eating British beef. That is a very clear double negative. The chief medical officer did not say British beef is safe to eat because one cannot prove that it is.

Mr. Gummer: The chief medical officer went on to say:
I therefore have no hesitation in saying that beef can be eaten safely by everyone, both adults and children, including patients in hospital.
I do not see how that does not mean that beef is safe to eat.

Mr. Williams: I shall return to the point that no scientist in Britain today, no matter how distinguished—including the chief medical officer—can say with certainty that all British beef is safe to eat.
The Southwood committee estimated that the epidemic would peak at 350 to 400 incidents per month—and that figure was quoted earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). Already, the death rate is 350 to 450 cows per week, which is four times Southwood's projected figure—and the rate is doubling every six months. Despite the Minister's extraordinary complacency, the figure is multiplying exponentially. If the plateau had been reached, there could possibly be room for complacency, but in reality BSE is increasing way out of control.
Given the best scientific advice available at the time, Southwood predicted that cattle were likely to be the dead end host, but evidently that is not the case. BSE in cattle can be passed to mice, mink, deer, and possibly cats. It is very possible that scrapie in sheep evolves, mutates and changes when transmitted to cattle—and that the resultant strain, which manifests itself as BSE, could be many times more virulent and pathogenic than the scrapie from which it originated. In that respect, Southwood erred far too much on the side of optimism, and failed to make the more pessimistic assumptions that it should have made.
There are huge areas of ignorance in respect of BSE. It would benefit the debate if the Minister did not always display ebullient confidence and knock every argument to the floor—even if that is only in his own mind, because the consumer is far more discriminating and can see through the right hon. Gentleman's bullish arrogance. In any scientific inquiry, there needs to be more humility in the search for the truth. The fact remains that the scientists concerned, eminent though they may be, do not yet understand the key features of the disease. They do not know how widespread it is or how to diagnose it. With

both scrapie and BSE, one can only reach a diagnosis by killing the suspect animal and examining its brain. It is incredible that such a viral particle or infective agent should be so hard to detect by normal diagnostic techniques.
We do not understand either how the disease is transmitted, or how scrapie became BSE. We do not know how other animals become infected by BSE. Most important of all, we cannot be certain that BSE does not affect human beings—no matter what may be said by Sir Donald Acheson, the Minister, or anyone else. It will take at least one decade before we can be sure whether BSE has any effect on human beings. To be as complacent as the Minister has shown himself to be, not only over the past few days but the past few years, is just as dangerous as scaremongering. There should be more balance in the debate, and greater consideration of both sides of the argument.
BSE is to be the subject of a "Horizon" programme on BBC2 tonight. The blurb for that programme in today's issue of The Independent says that
scientists reveal that neither the facts nor the risks are fully understood.
That is the state of our knowledge. The Minister may not acknowledge all the uncertainties, but the president of the National Farmers Union does. Sir Simon Gourlay is also quoted in The Independent today as saying:
People recognise when there are voids in information. At the moment there is little confidence in official statements and that is why there is mayhem … there is a fear of the unknown.
Sir Simon Gourlay has the modesty to accept the crisis of confidence that exists currently because of a fear of the unknown—but the Minister shows no such doubts. The debate would benefit also if the Minister and his colleagues, as well as MAFF, exhibited a little more humility and showed themselves willing to entertain some of the doubts shared both by the general public and leading scientists.
The effects of BSE are potentially so catastrophic that we should be adopting precautionary principles at every stage. Humans can recover from salmonella poisoning, but BSE is potentially an irreversible killer. It must be remembered that 100 years ago livestock was killed and consumed locally, but in today's food processing industry just one infected cow could contaminate 100 or 1,000 products and people.
The issue has gained extra momentum over the past two weeks because it has been found that cats have possibly died from contracting BSE. Those deaths might strike the House as trivial, and right hon. and hon. Members may question why cat deaths in Bristol, Belfast and Birmingham made the front pages of tabloid newspapers last week. However, if one considers the matter biologically, as carnivores, cats have digestive systems that are far more similar to those of human beings than cows. If the BSE particle or virus can survive the robust digestive system of a cat, containing as it does acids and enzymes to break down complex proteins, and damage its brain, at a molecular level it is most disturbing and significant that BSE can kill carnivores.
The more that BSE jumps species, in the way that scrapie jumps species, the more concerned every one of us should be. The two or three cat deaths that we have heard about could be just the beginning of an epidemic. Generally, when cats die no post-mortem is held.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the chief medical officer at the Department of Health is wrong to assert that there is no risk to humans from eating beef?

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would know that I said that no scientist can say that. The Southwood committee, which has produced perhaps the most authoritative document, said that the chance is extremely remote. I hope and pray that it cannot be transmitted to humans, but no scientist can say one way or the other. It will be at least a decade before we can give a firm no to that question.
In the meantime, following the precautionary principle, we should be doing all that we can to ensure that BSE-infected meat cannot enter the food chain. That is a reasonable request, which the NFU and the consumer will back. We should start the mass slaughter of the offspring of BSE-infected animals.
Scrapie passes from ewe to lamb. The AIDS virus passes from mother to foetus. The further the virus has progressed, the more likely it is that the mother will transmit it to the foetus, whereas if the mother is HIV positive, the chances of it being passed are perhaps 10 or 20 per cent. The further developed the virus is, the higher the probability.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): Would the hon. Gentleman persist with the policy of the mass slaughter of calves although the expert evidence suggests that it should not be done?

Mr. Williams: As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said, I do not see all the experts lining up on the Government side. A couple of weeks ago, the Government's chief veterinary officer, Keith Meldrum, said that in the meantime he supported veterinary advice to farmers not to breed from the offspring of infected cattle. He has strong doubts about vertical transmission. We should be adopting the precautionary principle. Wherever it is possible that meat may be infected by BSE, we should be taking it out of the food chain. It is probable that the calves of BSE-infected cattle carry BSE. The NFU and consumers consider that the slaughter of calves should be a matter of urgency. The Government should start to take swift action.
There should be random sampling in slaughterhouses of dead cows to ascertain the true incidence of BSE. We have figures only for those cows that showed clinical symptoms before they were slaughtered. There must be random inspection of the heads of all cows that are slaughtered.
There should be pilot studies in farms that have had multiple outbreaks of BSE. Many farms have had two, three or more cows suffering from BSE. The Government should undertake pilot studies of the mass slaughter of the herd to see how many have sub-clinical symptoms of BSE.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am finding it difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman. He was saying that we should proceed only on the certainties. He has made a substantial number of allegations, such as an epidemic of mad cats, without giving substance, belief or fact. Why does he believe that we should substitute his opinions or beliefs for the scientific facts that have been put forward by eminent scientists who say that we do not need a mass

slaughter policy? Is he going along with Professor Richard Lacey, who has argued that 6 million cattle should be slaughtered?

Mr. Williams: No. I said that we should not work on the basis of certainties because there are no certainties. We must adopt the precautionary principle. If there is a chance of meat being infected, we should slaughter the calves of infected cows. That view is held not only by the Opposition but by the NFU and individual farmers in my constituency to whom I have spoken. In our part of the country, which is also represented by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), Dyfed has the highest incidence in Wales and, with the south west, probably the highest incidence in Britain.
It is appalling that offal from cows that may have sub-clinical BSE is still being fed to pigs and poultry. There is a danger of multiplying the disease and that it could jump species. We need to look carefully at the disposal of carcases. We must ensure that BSE-contaminated meat does not enter the food chain. Carcases have been buried in toxic waste tips, and I have read of headless carcases being disposed of in a refuse tip. We know that rats and birds feed from refuse tips. There is a danger of a BSE-infected animal carrying the disease to the rat and bird populations. It is absurd that we are disposing of carcases so carelessly.
There should be high temperature incineration to ensure that we get rid of the virus completely. The outbreak of BSE, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said, is not the farmers' fault. The farmers suffer, but it is not their fault. It is the product of animal feeding. Scrapie got into animal feed, which was insuffiently heated. The Government reduced the temperature from 130 deg C, which previously killed scrapie, to 105 deg C and has allowed it to develop into BSE.
Farmers should be compensated; 100 per cent. compensation was made a year or two after the campaign on scrapie that was run by the Opposition and others, but when it comes to a slaughter policy for calves there should be 100 per cent. compensation.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields that potentially this is the greatest crisis that has faced agriculture this century. If the Government do not act much more decisively and quickly, instead of doing too little too late, it will become a crisis of epidemic proportions. When we are dealing with human health, it is wiser to err on the side of overkill than to tread timidly a year or two too late, as the Government are doing.
In the interests of the beef producer and the consumer, I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the points that have been made by Labour Members in the debate.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) has done his best to undermine the confidence of the industry and the consumer in the expert advisers to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the farming industry. I am sorry that he used his medical and scientific knowledge in that way. If the hon. Gentleman wants to express those views, he should take them to the committee that has been set up by my right hon. Friend the Minister


and to those who are his peers in this discipline. The hon. Gentleman should not make his fears public. I am sorry that he made that speech.
I should like to say a few words on behalf of those in the livestock husbandry industry who have been worried about BSE for many months. They have suffered greatly in recent months because of lead contamination and the near catastrophe that resulted. They foresaw the serious scares -not backed by scientific evidence—that might be engendered about the effect of BSE on domestic meat consumption. They implored those of us who represent the south-west of England to express their fears to the Ministry and demand the clearest possible scientific research into this unpleasant disease as soon as possible so that British beef is cleared as safe for consumption at home and abroad.
Over the past year, many of us have implored the Department to do all that it can to come up with the answer. My right hon. Friend the Minister has explained what the answer was. The advice so far is begining to give confidence back to the beef producers. I hope that the House will say nothing more tonight to undermine that confidence.
I have seldom heard as disgraceful an attack on agriculture, undermining the confidence of the consumer, as that from the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). In the few years in which I have been a Member, I do not think that I have ever heard quite such an irresponsible attack made from the Front Bench on either side of the House. I deplore it and shall do my utmost to ensure that those who husband the beef industry in my part of the country know about it. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself. He should be trying to restore confidence that our best scientists will find the cause of this disease—as I believe they will-and confidence in the results so far, which show that there is no evidence that beef is dangerous to humans. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have served his party better if he had done that without trying to attack my right hon. Friend in a silly, personal, political way. It was one of the most disgraceful attacks that I have ever heard since becoming a Member.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I have listened to the debate with considerable interest. The Minister put up a good, robust defence of his position. I could not agree with everything he said, but he made a much better job of it than the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) did in attacking him. The Minister's comments were helpful in that the industry and consumers were looking for some of the reassurances that he gave. We must be aware of the risks that may or may not be caused to beef because of the disease. There is no evidence that the disease can be transferred to humans, but we can never be certain.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor: I shall give way later, but it is important that this point is clear in the minds of the industry and consumers. The Government's position and mine is that the disease's potential cannot be ruled out altogether. There is no reason to believe that the disease is present

other than in the specified offal. It is important for people to be clear on that point, because it means that it is all right to eat meat that has not been contaminated in any way with that offal. Indeed, I ate some at the weekend. However, I shall refer to loopholes in terms of contamination and the effort to eliminate the disease.

Mr. Hanley: As a Liberal Democrat council has banned the consumption of beef in schools in Richmond upon Thames, does the hon. Gentleman regard that as responsible or irresponsible given that, as he said, there is no scientific evidence to support that approach? This action has caused much fear among people who say, "If our councillors ban beef, it must be bad."

Mr. Taylor: Emphasising it is unhelpful, but various councils have taken various actions. I happen to have spoken to councillors in Richmond upon Thames about what they have done. Their action has been similar to that in my county, although they took a different route because of different circumstances. Because parents made the request, the authorities have ensured that all children have the option of not eating beef, and only where that alternative is not provided have they stopped serving beef.
In terms of public concern, that is not unreasonable. Some parents would not be reassured if they felt that their children had no option but to eat beef. They would feel that their children were being forced to eat something that the parents would prefer they did not eat. I do not criticise that attitude. But it would only be unreasonable had councillors said that beef was unsafe and should never be available to children.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) made a perfectly proper intervention, but councillors of all political colours have made a decision on the facts as they understand them. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not a party political matter? The key point is to ensure that the evidence is known to the people making the decisions and that they make, democratically, the best decisions. We all aim to achieve the right results for everyone in all council areas.

Mr. Taylor: I should like to make progress, moving away from that incidental issue and commenting on what Ministers should do.
The Government have consistently refused calls by the National Farmers Union and others, including me, to label foodstuffs. They are still refusing, although the European Community may force compliance to some degree by 1992, but even then there is no requirement to state the percentage of ingredients. Given what appears to have happened because of the inclusion of offal, it is understandable that farmers should feel strongly about what they are being given to feed their livestock—feeding stuffs about which they have no knowledge and over which they have no control. In an article in The Sunday Telegraph yesterday, the Gloucestershire trading standards officer said:
We probably carry out more tests on feeding stuffs than any other county and we find more errors with them than with anything else we check. We find something wrong in about 1 in 8 samples. On a national scale it indicates a big problem. In one sample of calf food, we found string, buttons from overalls and little lumps of metal.
Apart from those farmers who grow food for their cows, farmers could not be sure of what was going into the


feeding stuffs. I have received letters however from farmers pointing out that not all had fed this stuff to their animals, and whose livestock are not therefore at risk. While specified offals have been banned from feedstuffs for cows, a problem remains for farmers in respect of other species, such as pigs. The Minister may say that the risk is acceptable but farmers may nevertheless prefer not to take it, and they cannot be altogether sure what they are feeding to their animals.
We tabled an amendment to the Food Safety Bill to require the labelling of animal feedstuffs and the banning of the inclusion of potentially hazardous contents in feedstuffs for all species. That is not unreasonable. I am told that it is perfectly possible to achieve that using modern computer techniques; certainly, the NFU believes that it is possible. I hope that the Minister will use the opportunity presented by the concern over BSE to act on that amendment. I do not understand why he will not. Such an amendment would greatly reassure both consumers and industry, so I hope that he will reconsider.
We must also consider the use of suspect offals at all in feedstuffs for pigs and poultry. The Government say that they have not had scientific advice to the effect that that should be banned. I accept that, but there is no doubt that it would reassure customers and the industry—which has expressed its concern, I am sure, to other hon. Members as well as myself—if those specified offals were banned. That would give us a cast-iron guarantee. The scientific advice is that there is no evidence that there is a risk, but we must remember that we were originally told that the disease could not be transferred to other species such as cats. But that now appears to have happened. Such a move would make sense in terms of the current public concern. If we are to help the industry and protect the consumer, we should try to meet those concerns.
As recently as 14 May, Ministers refused to give a cast-iron guarantee that pigs and poultry could not be affected. In a written answer on 28 March, the Minister listed eight research projects dealing with this very matter. The fact that there are eight research projects does not necessarily point to a definite risk, but it suggests that scientists and the Minister believe that the matter is worthy of further investigation. If that is so, to reassure the public, we should play safe and ban the use of specified offal in feedstuffs for all species.
We must also consider pet food. Two, or perhaps three, cats appear to have been infected with a feline version of the disease. Yet on 29 March the Minister said in the Standing Committee considering the Food Safety Bill that there was no evidence of naturally occurring spongiform encephalopathy in cats and dogs. He therefore proposed to do nothing. In response to the amendment that I had tabled to ban the use of specified offal in pet foods, the Minister said:
I do not want to get into the position where I as a politician, go into a crazy panic over pet food, when all the evidence is against there being any risk whatever of the disease jumping species to cats and dogs. I could ban the pet food for no good reason and the scientists could a year later say that I was wrong—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 29 March 1990; c. 125.]
That was fair enough. But, unfortunately for the Minister, only a month or two later, people are telling him, "You got it wrong; you should have banned the use of specified offals in pet food." In other words, he would have done better to play safe, as I argued at the time, and that option is still open to him.
Before the present difficulties arose, and while the Food Safety Bill was in Committee, I wrote to the pet food manufacturers to ask whether they were operating the voluntary ban of which we had been told. They responded to the effect that they were. Some 5 per cent. of the pet food manufacturers are not covered by the manufacturers' association, but given that the manufacturers say that they are operating a voluntary ban—indeed, they argued that they were operating it before the present ban was introduced in respect of food for human consumption—why do not the Government close the loophole and make illegal the use of specified offals in pet food? We know that a problem has arisen. Why do we not take the action which manufacturers appear to accept—but which as yet we have no guarantee that they are implementing? The Minister said earlier that the manufacturers had been warned that they should watch developments in respect of cats and dogs. It therefore surprises me that when I raised the matter in Committee the Government said that there was no evidence whatever to suggest that they should take such action. That does not seem to make sense.
We then have to deal with the protection of cattle. The Minister has consistently refused to accept that there is any justification for slaughtering the offspring of BSE-infected cattle. When I asked him about it on 15 March, he replied:
We have no plans to do so.—[Official Report, 15 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 324.]
Tonight he has told us why he made that decision. He cited the Tyrrell report. I accept that Tyrrell did not recommend that the offspring of BSE-infected cattle should be slaughtered. But the report said:
Infection from cow to calf is a possibility that cannot be excluded at present.
On Report, I tabled an amendment to the Food Safety Bill that would ensure that farmers were fully compensated for the slaughter of those calves. I do not necessarily argue that we should go that far. I listened with interest to what the Minister said, and he may be right. I do not claim to have the necessary expertise to say one way or the other, but I know how the public and the industry are reacting and I do not think that they would be dismayed if the Minister took such a course, which might help to resolve the present crisis of confidence in the beef industry. But if the Government are not prepared to do that—and given that Tyrrell specifically said that we could not rule out a potential risk—why do not they ensure that there is at least a comprehensive tagging and registration scheme so that we know what is happening to the offspring? At the moment, we may believe that there is no reason for slaughter but, according to Tyrrell, we cannot rule out the possibility that that need will arise. We heard tonight that the Government's chief veterinary officer had said:
It would not surprise me to find that maternal transmission can occur.
A minimum requirement to register seems to me eminently sensible.
When the problem first arose, the Minister said:
Nobody takes this disease more seriously than I do, but there is no justification for further action.
Perhaps there was no justification, but given the present crisis of confidence for industry and consumer, the Minister should be seen to act to close every loophole, and that is one of the loopholes.
Following the progress of food from farm to plate, we go next to the abattoir. The Minister has at last told us the result of his further consultations about abattoir procedures. He will recall that, early this year,


environmental health officers expressed serious concerns—expressed first in my constituency and subsequently taken up by their organisation—about the way in which some abattoirs operated. In effect, the abattoirs were, and are, attempting to get round the Minister's regulations banning specified offals. To realise the full value of the heads, they are split open with band saws. Inevitably, some splatter results and there is a risk of cross-contamination.
The heads are split and the broken brain removed so that the full value of the total carcase can be realised. That makes relatively little financial difference to the farmer, but in an abattoir where huge numbers of heads are processed the practice of splitting heads in that way is significant for profit margins. Clearly, that practice avoided the spirit of the Minister's advice. After I met the Minister and discussed the problem with him, he said that he would seek further advice. I was told that he would meet me in two weeks and tell me what advice he had been given. Well, some two months on, the results of the advice were announced today.
If cooking cannot kill the disease, anyone with common sense will appreciate that washing the meat if splatter occurs is no guarantee of safety. Perhaps the most important point is that washing down will not reassure the public if it does not reassure environmental health officers. I am pleased that the Minister has referred that point to the Tyrrell committee. However, I suspect that the committee will say that there is no scientific evidence to justify stopping that head-splitting process. Perhaps that would be an example of advisers advising, but Ministers must decide to ensure that even the most unlikely loophole is stopped. I am referring only to the specified offals and the risk of cross-contamination of what I said at the beginning of my speech is otherwise perfectly good meat.

Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about what I have done. I hope that he recognises that the matter has gone to the Tyrrell committee because our expert advice is that what we are doing is in general perfectly acceptable. However, I do not want there to be a scintilla of doubt.
The Tyrrell committee has made it clear that it should make its judgments according to the worst possible scenario. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) suggested that everyone was acting as though maternal transmission was impossible. Far from it. We always consider the worst possible scenario because that is the only way in which we can make judgments of this kind and that is what the Tyrrell committee is meant to do. Once we have asked such a committee to make its judgments on the worst possible scenario, we must accept those judgments and not second-guess them. If we second-guess them, we tell the public that we do not trust the people whom we have brought together to provide advice. We must be careful about suggesting that we should always act because we believe that the public will thereby be supportive. That is why I said clearly that I stick by the advice which is based on the worst possible scenario.

Mr. Taylor: As I have described, in abattoirs a band saw splits the head and enters brain material. Some of that splatters out and some remains on the band saw which is then used on other parts of other carcases. The advice is that the band saw and the area round the process should

be washed down after each head splitting. I do not believe that that happens. No one could believe that a proper and thorough washing down would occur after that process. Therefore, the scientific advice does not match up to common sense.
I learnt only today that a Scottish abattoir has a new technique for coping with heads. In that abattoir a stainless steel nozzle is attached to the end of a hose line. An extension from that fits exactly into the hole made by the stun bolt. Water is then forced into the skull at high pressure and the brain is forced out through the neck cavity at high speed in a gush. The matter goes everywhere. I do not believe that washing down takes place after each such action. A similar problem occurs with mechanically recovered meat.
Finally, I have a warning on which I hope the Minister will act. Also, the public should be aware of this point about the British beef industry. The Minister confirmed to me in a letter that there have been some cases of BSE in the Irish Republic. It is a very small number, but there have been cases. Therefore, beef is imported without any controls on specified offals that may be a risk. Will the Minister reconsider his inaction on this and act to ban the specified offals from meat imports?
I also suggest that it is not impossible—I am sure that the Minister shares my concern over this matter—that there is BSE infection in other countries in Europe, but that has not been reported. We have a well-controlled industry in this country and an awful lot of precautions are taken. It would be wrong for people to believe that British beef is more dangerous than any other beef. Because of the lack of controls and the situation in the Irish Republic, arguably imported beef is more at risk from cross-infection. However, that should not be a reason for the Minister to be complacent.
I have raised a number of specific suggestions about things that the Minister could do to reassure the industry and the consumer and I hope that he will act on that advice.

Mr. Christopher Gill: A great number of people in this country, particularly people in the food and farming industry, must wish that we were not having this debate. Right hon. and hon. Members who represent agricultural constituencies might share that view. Although I do not wish to dismiss the seriousness of BSE, least said, soonest mended. I appreciate that that advice is unlikely to be taken by Opposition parties. However, I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on his latter sentence. He went to great lengths to explain that there is nothing wrong with British beef. I entirely endorse his remark that British beef is arguably still the best beef in the world.
Opposition parties wish to score political points. They are not concerned about the damage that they might inflict upon the innocent victims of their scaremongering. BSE is not contagious. What is contagious is the panic that national and local politicians create in the minds of the general public about the food that they eat. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) spoke about the calamitous effects on farmers and consumers. This is not a political issue. Whatever political case Opposition parties may think exist, they make their case badly and without any consideration of the continued damage to public


confidence, or of the commercial damage to the food and farming industry and, in particular, the men and women whose livelihoods depend upon that industry. Opposition parties know only too well that this is essentially an animal health issue. It is not even a human health issue. The irresponsibility of Opposition parties is matched only by the blatant scaremongering of those who started this hare running.
Opposition Members protest that they are concerned about the farming industry and consumers, but they, together with the media, know that food scares are good copy because food is directly related to everyday life. It affects every person in the land, and it is a matter to which every member of the public can relate. That is why whenever something is supposed to be wrong with food it can almost be guaranteed to get headlines.

Mr. Ron Davies: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman listened carefully to the opening speech by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), but in case he did not I assure him that we have no interest in a food scare or in encouraging any food scare. We are concerned to restore confidence in the British beef industry. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to read in Hansard tomorrow the speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for South Shields and for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and my own speech. The hon. Gentleman will not find one sentence that damages the beef industry.

Mr. Gill: The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) makes my point for me. Words will not alter very much, but the more we politicians go banging on about the issue and making sure that it gets headlines in the newspapers and appears in every news bulletin day in and day out, the more the industry is prejudiced. Of greater concern is that fear and uncertainty is prolonged among the general public. I deprecate the irresponsible way in which the Opposition play on innocent people's fears. I deplore their rejection of evidence simply because it does not suit their own bias.

Mr. Barry Field: rose——

Mr. Gill: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
That attitude is not untypical of the Labour party, which cannot make its case without recourse to scaremongering.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: rose——

Mr. Gill: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and then I shall gladly give way to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams).

Mr. Field: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the canteen on Thursday evening two very large trays of steak pie were completely sold out because Opposition Members were purchasing it? I got the last portion and jolly tasty it was, too—and it was British beef.

Mr. Gill: I am most encouraged by what my hon. Friend has said. I am sure that all responsible hon. Members know—and will demonstrate on every possible occasion—that there is no possible threat to one's health from eating British beef.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but must advise him that I shall

not be as helpful to him as was the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). The hon. Gentleman referred to the propriety of holding a debate on the subject of BSE. Would he prefer the Opposition to sit still, to talk about all the other issues, but not to mention BSE? Would he prefer the Opposition to allow the Government simply to carry on with their work behind the scenes and allow the number of BSE cases to double every six months and quadruple every year, as is happening now?

Mr. Gill: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statesmanlike remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) who pointed out that there are better vehicles for exercising concern and better forums for expressing the detailed and technical aspects of this matter than a debate on the Floor of the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that events in the Chamber are now recorded on television for all the world to see. If would be far more responsible if the Opposition awaited the findings of the Select Committee on Agriculture which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, will investigate this matter and take evidence from whoever seeks to give evidence to it—the hon. Gentleman himself may seek to do so—and will then report back to the House with its findings. I am sure that the general public would be much more satisfied and would have their minds put more at rest if that inquiry were allowed to proceed in a rational and calm manner.
The hon. Member for South Shields accused my right hon. Friend the Minister of doing too little, too late. When the hon. Gentleman makes such comments Conservative Members wonder what he would have done differently. Would he have taken advice from different sources? Would he have rejected the advice of Tyrrell and Southwood and relied more on the advice proffered by Professor Lacey, which might be more in tune with his own political prejudices?
It is important that all hon. Members retain an open mind on this subject, pending the results of the Select Committee inquiry. I very much welcome the inquiry, because the food and farming industry has absolutely nothing to hide. I am confident that that industry will adopt any reasonable measures that are suggested as a result of the inquiry. As a member of the Select Committee, I shall be especially interested to hear the evidence of some well-known publicity-seeking sensationalists. In the meantime, I have absolutely no hesitation in stating that British beef is perfectly safe to eat and that the overwhelming weight of evidence supports that view.

Mr. Martyn Jones: Let me say at the outset that I am still eating beef—at least as far as my cholesterol level will allow. However, I am not eating products that contain mechanically recovered meat or any of the more exotic parts of the animal that masquerade as beef and that can be used at present. The few bits of the animal that are not used, or are obtained from unfit animals, are then used as animal feed to turn cows into carnivores and chickens into cannibals.
However, as I said, I am still eating red meat beef because, after reading at least some of the evidence. I can assess that evidence for myself. However, most people cannot and require the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Health to assess the risk for them and to take every reasonable precaution.


As a member of the Select Committee on Agriculture, I will not prejudge its deliberations, but from the evidence that I have examined it is already obvious to me—as an interested individual—that the Ministry has not acted with wholehearted interest or with the necessary speed to protect either the farming industry or the consumer.

Mr. Martlew: Is it not true that the work of the Select Committee—of which my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and I are both members—has been badly damaged by the speech by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill)? The hon. Gentleman, along with another hon. Member who spoke last Thursday, seems to have already made up his mind about the conclusions of the report. He has concluded that British beef is safe, and that the scare is all the fault of a bogus professor and a dead cat. Surely we must be more careful about what we say if we are to be regarded as independent judges.

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is right, and I shall try to be open minded. However, I have read much of the evidence that has already been given to the Committee, and I am convinced that so far the Ministry has not acted correctly.
On the evidence of the Ministry's own experts, the epidemic in the cattle population was caused by the bending of rules governing heat-treating of offal, sanctioned by the Government. For two years after its recognition, Ministry vets were told not to refer to the disease as "scrapie-like". On top of that, there is the compensation fiasco. What can the Ministry have been thinking of—apart from saving money—by offering 50 per cent. compensation? Bowing to pressure, the Ministry increased that to 100 per cent., and the weekly average of reported cases jumped from 278 to 460—hardly a gradual increase.
If those incidents are coupled with the bungling of the on-going salmonella food-poisoning epidemic, the listeria problem and the fears about microwave cookers, it is hardly surprising that the public do not believe the Minister or his Under-Secretary when they claim that there is no risk to humans. The public—who have not read the report by Sir Richard Southwood—can appreciate, even if the Minister cannot, the finding of the report, which says that human transmission cannot be ruled out. That is a risk, however small.
I am not a specialist in neuropathology, but the risk to humans depends on its transmissibility. We are told that scrapie has not caused a human disease, despite existing in Britain for 250 years. However, the human form of the disease—Creuzfeld-Jakob disease—was described only in 1923, and was not recognised as a transmissible disease until 1960. Possibly more worrying is the laboratory evidence, which shows that, although scrapie will not infect rabbits directly, it will infect them after infecting hamsters. That is a well-known phenomenon in micribiology. That could increase the risk, whatever it may be. No one—not even the Minister or his experts—can assess the risk; it is unassessable.
Even if the disease passes from cows to humans, we are still not facing a human epidemic. At worst, we are probably facing an increase from about 30 to 100 or so cases a year. That is because many factors involved are in the incidence of this type of disease; whether we call it a

slow virus or a prion. No one knows exactly what it consists of, how it can be transmitted or how it can be detected.
It is known, however, that there are genetic and transmission factors, and there appears to be a dose-related factor, although until reseach is done on the epidemiology of Creuzfeld-Jakob disease we cannot be sure. The Minister should ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health to make Creuzfeld-Jakob disease notifiable, as medical opinion considers the disease to be under-reported, and there is also a possible confusion with Alzheimer's disease. The incidence of CJD must be quantified; otherwise, how can we know what—if any—increase will occur from any type of BSE-related incident?
What should we do to restore confidence? We must examine abattoir practice. We must not use the brains of cattle for any purposes. All cattle brains should be destroyed by burning within the head. We must stop offals such as brain, spleen and lymph glands being used in any animal food. We have already had a sequal to "Mad Max I"; how many more of Britain's 7 million cats must suffer and die? On 24 April the Minister said that there was no evidence of naturally occurring encephalopathies in cats and dogs. That is almost certainly true, but there have been two unnatural cases recently. It could be another case of cross-species transmission. We do not know. We face not a doomsday scenario, but a risk. It does nothing for the Government's credibility publicly to deny any risk when their experts say that there is one, albeit a small one.
BSE could be transmitted to humans. The Southwood report and the chief veterinary officer have said so. Regardless of all the discussion about risk, one fact is certain and has nothing to do with the Opposition calling the debate. It is that public confidence in beef has plummeted. That will affect farmers throughout the country, especially those in my area, who are not the richest. In 1984 they got £1·98 a kilo whereas last week a farmer was offered £1·84. Even for sheep, which are not affected by the problem, my farmers are getting £2·62, which is exactly the same as in 1984. Coupled with high interest rates and the poll tax, this is a potential disaster for farming.
Confidence must be restored. It will not be fully restored until we have a food standards agency which is genuinely independent of both Government and the food industry. Meantime, I hope that the deliberations of the Select Committee will be accepted as objective. To restore confidence to the market and to prevent farmers from suffering from a problem which is not of their own making, the Government should err on the side of caution. They should not hide behind expert advice. Advisers advise, but Ministers decide. They should immediately stop offal feeding to all animals; they should instigate random testing at abattoirs; they should prevent the possibility of vertical transmission in cattle by culling calves and infected cattle with full compensation and they should increase reseach on transmission.
I will continue to eat whole red beef, but I am not confident of some beef products. Consumers will not be confident until the Minister takes on board all the measures that we have outlined and changes many of the food processors' practices to the benefit of consumers and producers.

Mr. Tim Boswell: I must declare an interest as a layman on the Agricultural and Food Research Council. I keep a close eye on its research. I am grateful to the Government for their contribution of £12 million to it and to medical research which is essential. I also declare my interest as a beef farmer.
The Minister, properly, concentrated on consumers. He has often said that he puts consumers first. Farmers must also do so. However, this morning I had to stop my cattle going to market because of this ridiculous scare, so I think that it is fair to flag up the damage that these stories can do to legitimate businesses and a major British industry.
The Minister made a convincing case for the Government's action on the scientific advice that they receive. In so far as any of the Opposition's case remains, it centres on the alleged delay in implementation. The Minister explained why it took place, but having read round the subject I wish to make one or two points. In doing so I follow the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), not in his conclusions but in some of his analysis.
First, this is a brand new disease or possible complex of diseases. We have known about scrapie for some time—I have had one isolated case on my farm—but this is the first time that such a disease has cropped up in cattle and we do not even know what to call it. Is it a prion or a slow virus? We need to research that. Secondly, the period of incubation is questionable and there is no possibility of diagnosis in a live animal. If we had that possibility, life would be a great deal easier. Thirdly, it is clear by analogy that the disease is not highly infectious because mostly there have been one or two cases in a herd. Similarly, although scrapie in sheep is more concentrated in some breeds than others, cases are sporadic and intermittent. Fourthly, there seems to be little evidence of transmission across species, except in rather artificial conditions, such as some which have been mentioned.
The complexity of the difficulties now faced by the Minister are also revealed by the fact that BSE has given rise to the rediagnosis of a series of events that had simply been left to go on the nod in the past. I understand that the Americans are re-examining 80 cases of bovine rabies and I would not be at all surprised to find cases of BSE on the continent that are now dismissed as rabies. There may well be other examples of BSE in Britain—we have already had it diagnosed in a cat—that were not diagnosed in the past because no one thought to investigate that possible diagnosis.
The Minister must not only protect the public, but he must not go off at half-cock before the necessary information and advice is available to him. Hon. Members will be aware that certain debates are going on now concerning the Food Safety Bill and it is proposed that further compensation should be provided if local authorities seize food without justification. One can imagine the situation in which the Minister could find himself if he closed down the livestock industry—that appears to be the logic behind some Opposition speeches—without proper justification. That decision would never stand up in court and the compensation would be immense.
It has been difficult for the Minister to feel his way forward. but he has struck the right balance. There are certain points that I should like him to bear in mind. First,

we know that enforcement is always difficult and we must ensure that regulations and advice are heeded. The enforceability of a full notification and tracing process for calves of infected animals after some years have elapsed and those calves have moved to different herds is a daunting task for my right hon. Friend even if he were advised to undertake it.
Secondly, there is a major need for greater public education not least because education committees, including, I am ashamed to say, my county's, have decided to proceed often on political rather than scientific grounds. They have second-guessed the advice, that the Minister has received. If those committees have better advice, by all means submit it to my right hon. Friend, but so far their approach has not been scientific.
I was slightly surprised to see a reference to the danger of eating meat pies by no less a distinguished person than the medical correspondent of The Times.He referred to that danger because brain and spinal tissue are used in those pies. That is a surprising comment in view of the safeguards that the Minister has imposed.
My third point relates specifically to my constituency and the tip site at Welford, which has now been closed. Carcases have been buried at that site, but I strongly prefer incineration, which is more positive and final.
My right hon. Friend should also consider the possibility of epidemiological studies of ordinary carcases and brains taken from the slaughterhouses. Although that is a one-star priority, the fact that one would be dealing with such large numbers means that there would be no bias in the sample and a small number would provide a good statistical reading that one could use with confidence.
The Government have expressed their readiness to keep reminding the public of what they are doing, to publish the information that they have and to consider new information when it becomes available—in that they have met my request. There is an equal duty on the Opposition not to stir things up with inappropriate scares. If the issues are real, they should be brought forward, but Opposition Members should avoid using words such as "could", "might", or "no absolute assurance" because they are not synonymous with a realistic and balanced approach to the problem.
With the possible exception of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), no one else in the Chamber will remember the foot and mouth epidemic of 1967, which devastated the dairying areas of the north-west. I was then a junior researcher for the Conservative party and there was then a great deal of pressure on Conservative Members, then the Opposition, to attack the Government. Those pressures were firmly and rigorously resisted, and rightly so. No party that aspires to be in Government should stir up criticism in that way. The Government have acted responsibly in this matter. They have taken the best advice, which is good enough for me and, I hope, the House.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I recollect that Mr. Fred Peart, as he then was, was seriously criticised in 1967. The recollection of some of us is not what the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said.
I have three questions. First, is it or is it not true that the cuts in the Agricultural and Food Research Council have been something of a hindrance in the present crisis?


Secondly, are the Government going to bring forward legislation fairly soon involving the changes in abattoirs? The Minister referred to the New Scientist. There is a powerful six-page article on the issue of stunning and what that can do to meat. In 15 seconds I cannot go into it, but I ask that question. Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has had some difficulty with his information, which I believe is absolutely valid. What are the instructions given to people working in Government employment in relation to making statements? That is something that should be coolly contemplated.

Mr. Ron Davies: I am disappointed that the hon. Members for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler), who have been in the Chamber throughout the evening, have not had the opportunity to speak. I know that they have both followed the debate closely, but that is the way the cookie crumbles.
The latter point of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) was answered fully by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who made clear the attitude of the then Opposition in 1967. The hon. Members for Daventry and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) criticised the Opposition for tabling the motion. They seemed to imply, as my hon. Friend the the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) made clear, that we had no right to table a motion criticising the Government. I reject that view because I resent it. The Opposition have every right to table such a motion. I would suggest to anyone——

Mr. Gill: rose——

Mr. Davies: I shall not give way because time is short and the hon. Gentleman has made his case. I must now make mine.
We tabled our motion, which was critical of the Government. No Opposition Member has said anything to impugn the integrity of the beef industry or cast any doubt on the wisdom of eating beef. If that is construed as an attack on the beef industry, I am sorry. But our motion specifically attacks the Government's handling of the present problem of BSE, which is the issue that I want to address.
The hon. Member for Ludlow asked why we should debate this matter this evening. I received a parliamentary answer today stating that, during the past four weeks, 1,148 cases of BSE have been confirmed. Every county in England and Wales during the past four weeks has had confirmed cases of BSE. That alone is a good reason to debate the issue this evening. If the hon. Gentleman had looked at the press last week he would have seen that there is major public concern. It is right that if every newspaper in the country draws attention to what is clearly a major problem and local authorities throughout the land—Conservative, Labour, Liberal and hung—decide that there is sufficient concern——

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose——

Mr. Davies: I shall not give way to the hon. Lady. She has been in and out all evening, and if she cannot listen to the debate, I am sorry.
Authorities across the political spectrum have decided, rightly or wrongly, that they want to ban beef in their schools. That is a matter of concern to me and, I know, to my hon. Friends, and that is why we tabled the motion.
I do not know what was the experience of the hon. Members for Daventry and for Ludlow during the weekend, but I know that they both have close interests with the farming industry and are both, I believe, former members of the National Farmers Union. I talked to several farmers in my constituency at the weekend. They all recognised that the major problem they currently face—admittedly, they were involved in dairy and stock rearing—is BSE. They want action and are not satisfied with the description that we have so far received from the Minister. The widespread opinion outside the House is a good reason why we should debate this matter and examine the Government's record.
Let us look at the case that the Minister made out when opening the debate. His case hinged on the idea that the Government are committed to acting on—and only on—that which has been scientifically proven. I happen to think that that is a faulty approach. Of course, the Government must listen and accept scientific evidence and advice, but their responsbility is to interpret that advice and then to apply it in practice at the political level, just as they did in the case of green top milk. The Government must understand that the public will make their own assessment of the risks involved with BSE, and if the public perception is that the safeguards implemented by the Government are insufficient they will take their own action—as they have.
The Government cannot determine policy in a vacuum. The likely public reaction to their initiatives, such as they are, must inform Government policy. A wilful disregard of the developing public mood in relation to food safety, in concert with the ritualistic recital of the words "scientific evidence", is bound to inflame, rather than calm, public concern hence the report in The Sunday Telegraph yesterday that six out of 10 people questioned now believe that the Government are withholding information on BSE.
The Government's reference to scientific evidence is itself disingenuous. Lack of hard scientific evidence that BSE poses a threat is not the same as saying that we have scientific evidence that it is not a threat. It may be instructive for those who listen to the words of scientists and advisers to hear what is said in the article in The Independent of Thursday 17 May:
A recent editorial in the British Medical Journal concluded: 'Repeated claims that British beef is entirely safe to eat are very probably true; but such claims are scarcely scientific when the question has not been tested and is, perhaps, untestable.'
The editorial was written by Professor Bryan Matthews, who is one of the country's leading experts on the human disease Creuzfeld-Jakob Disease, which shows some similarity to BSE.
That is not a source to be dismissed lightly.
The Minister would have us believe that because we do not know that BSE affects humans, or that it is vertically transmitted, or that it is present in calves of less than six months of age, BSE cannot affect humans, cannot be vertically transmitted and cannot be present in calves of less than six months. That approach is dishonest.
In the absence of firm scientific proof, the Government must make an assessment of what could possibly happen. I am grateful that the Minister, when intervening in the


speech of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), made the welcome statement that he was prepared to consider the worst scenario. That is the first time he has made that admission inpublic——

Mr. Gummer: indicated dissent

Mr. Davies: The Minister might have said it in private, but I welcome the fact that he has gone on public record with it this evening. Evidence of the action that he has taken to date shows that he has not adopted that line hitherto.
The Government must assess what could possibly happen and frame a reasonable political response. Their failure to do so in the past 10 years has been the principal cause of the current crisis in public confidence in our beef industry. For example, in the early 1960s it was a scientifically established fact that scrapie was transmissible, and it was known that that took place by ingestion. There was, however, no scientific proof that cattle could catch the bovine equivalent of scrapie. That position was exactly analogous to that which applies to humans now. The lack of scientific evidence did not prevent the feeding of scrapie-infected remains to cattle, causing the emergence of BSE.
It is because the public are worried that the lack of scientific evidence will not prevent the same thing happening to humans that we have this crisis on our hands. After all, why should the public accept Government assurances that all is well? Had the Government been asked in the early 1980s about the practice of feeding vegetarian cattle on sheep, no doubt they would have said that it was perfectly acceptable. It turned out not to be, but because of the lack of scientific evidence at the time they kept on allowing dead sheep to be fed to vegetarian cattle.
The Minister spoke recently about what is and what is not natural in terms of diet. I am not sure about the credibility of a man who invokes biblical authority one week and requires binding scientific proof the next. The Minister has said that if God had meant man to be a vegetarian he would have given him three stomachs like a cow. The theology is dubious and the biology is worse because a cow has four stomachs. Because the Minister did not have scientific evidence—not biblical guidance—that this was dangerous, he continued to allow what is, by his own standards, the very unnatural practice of feeding dead cows to vegetarian cattle.
It is little wonder that no one now takes the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food seriously. At every point of the developing saga the Ministry has been found wanting. The Ministry knew 20 years ago that scrapie was transmissible by ingestion to other species but it did nothing. It knew in 1985 that cattle were being stricken and it covered that up. It knew in 1987 about a scientific paper intended to refer to a scrapie-like disease in cattle and censored it. It must have suspected in 1987 that contaminated feed was the problem and it did nothing until August 1988. The Ministry must have realised early on the potential risk to humans. The Southwood committee confirmed it in February 1989, but the very offals which were the reservoir of infection were not banned until November 1989.
After 1988 when the disease was made notifiable the Ministry must have known that infected animals were being slaughtered for human consumption. On the

Minister's own figures, 200 infected animals were plucked from slaughterhouses. If 200 were plucked out, how many went through? Farmers, veterinary surgeons and public health inspectors told the Government what was happening, but we had to wait until February this year when the Minister swapped the pulpit for the soap box. He went to the National Farmers Union conference and, to curry favour with the NFU and because he had precious little else to say, he increased the level of compensation by 200 per cent. He knows that he should have taken that measure at the outset because it would have stopped infected cattle entering the human food chain.
The Minister has shown similar scant regard for the health of workers in the industry. He still has not revised the practices for the handling of potentially infected bovine remains in slaughterhouses. The Government's action on health and safety guidelines and the monitori rig of the guidelines on the human equivalent, Creuzfeld-Jakob dementia, which came last month, three or four years after the Government knew about the start of the problem, were, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, too little too late.
The Minister may argue that that is wisdom with the benefit of hindsight. However, it represents the difference between what the Government have done and what Labour would do. The difference is between the minimum that the Government think they can get away with and that which we know is necessary to achieve and maintain minimum standards. The Minister has a steep hill to climb, and although I do not expect him to apologise for his past mistakes, we do expect him to take positive action to improve the outlook.
Why will not the Minister accept random sampling? The hon. Member for Daventry, who is an expert, and the hon. Member for Warrington, South, if he had spoken, would have joined us in calling for random sampling. The Minister has not given an answer to that and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will answer the question why does not the Minister require compulsory ante-mortem veterinary inspection of all bovines? He will be required to do that under EEC rules by January 1991 anyway. Why does he not bring it forward six months? If the Minister wants to restore public confidence in the beef industry, he should order that from tomorrow all cattle must be examined before slaughter. The Minister will not do that because he realises that there have been deficiencies in his policy for the past couple of years.
Why will not the Minister ban the use of specified offals in pet food and pig and poultry supplements? His explanation to date is that there is no example of scrapie having infected carnivorous animals. We are told that the Bible tells us that carnivores are naturally equipped to deal with scrapie. What about the cat that has scrapie? That is a carnivore. How can the Minister tell us that a cat can catch it but a pig or a chicken cannot. They are consuming what the Minister knows to be contaminated foodstuffs. If he wants to restore confidence in the British beef industry, he should now be taking such decisions.
Many hon. Members have spoken about monitoring the offspring of infected cattle. This crucial subject last week had the support of the president of the NFU and still has the continuing support of the Women's Farming Union. If BSE is the cattle equivalent of scrapie, all the characteristics in cattle will be the same as those in sheep


with scrapie, and BSE will be vertically transmissible. The Minister must accept that there is a strong possibility that it is vertically transmissible.
Any Minister who knew of this matter when he knew of the problem of BSE two or three years ago would have said, as a matter of first policy, that if there is a possibility of BSE being vertically transmissible, although the Ministry would not go the whole way and slaughter every calf, it should at least start recording the movement of calves. Then, if it were so proved, the Ministry would know where the calves are and have the records to deal with the problem. As the Minister admitted to me on Friday last week, not only does he not know where they are; he does not know how many calves alive today were born from BSE-infected cattle. That is a shoddy record, and that is why we tabled the motion.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr David Maclean): This has been an interesting debate, not least because it has exposed those on the Opposition Benches who will seek to exploit public fear for political aims. The intemperate outburst that we heard at the end was a clear demonstration of that.
The debate has put the labour party on the spot. First, it has had to justify having the debate at all. No wonder so many Labour Back Benchers are questioning the judgment of the leader of the Labour party when he takes up one half of his precious Supply day for a debate on Ravenscraig and the other he devotes to this subject when the questions about it were fully answered last Thursday in the detailed statement on it by my right hon. Friend the Minister, numerous press releases and over 30 learned reports and publications, all in the public domain. The people of Scotland will not understand a Labour party that prefers to damage the Scotch beef industry rather than argue for jobs at Ravenscraig.
The Labour party must also justify, although it has not, its refusal to rely on the expert scientific advice of the Government's top independent scientific advisers. We have based our policy on that advice, and in its motion condemning the Government, it is condemning that advice. The Labour party has said that it knows better and would have done it differently, but on which scientific advice would it rely? It has produced not one shred of evidence or argument to show that there is better scientific advice that we have not used.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has not Professor Lacey of Leeds grossly harmed the egg industry by an irresponsible campaign, and is he not now claiming to be an expert on this subject? Has Professor Lacey produced any in-depth scientific papers that have been subjected to the peer scrutiny that they so urgently require?

Mr. Maclean: I am not aware of any on this subject, but it is over a week since I called on Professor Lacey to say whether he has any evidence that he wishes to submit to our experts, or any advice on certain subjects about which he knows better. We have an open mind on this, and we keep all aspects of BSE policy under review. If anyone comes to us with any research, we will immediately pass it to Dr. Tyrrell and his experts for their advice. The

Opposition rely on Dr. Lacey and the media, who, as I understand it, have done no research. We shall rely on Dr. Tyrrell and his experts, who have.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) dismissed the views of the chief medical officer. No doubt Sir Donald Acheson is now persona non grata among the Opposition because he committed the fatal mistake of saying:
I therefore have no hesitation in saying that British beef can be eaten safely by everyone, both adults and children, including patients in hospital.
That is why Opposition Members would not mention Sir Donald in tonight's debate.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen said that the incidence of the disease is higher than Southwood predicted, but failed to point out that the disease is following the path predicted by Southwood. The hon. Gentleman and others make the assumption that BSE has jumped species. That is the kind of scaremongering that my hon. Friends mean when they accuse the Opposition of scaremongering. According to the Opposition, if a form of encephalopathy is found in a cat, automatically it must be BSE. The hon. Member for Carmarthen called for the mass slaughter of cows, even though the expert evidence is against it. The hon. Gentleman dodged that point. The chief veterinary officer does not support the mass extermination of cows.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen also made the allegation that the temperature at which carcases are rendered has been lowered. I refer him to the Southwood report, which details in its final pages the various rendering processes that are available and reveals that the temperature for rendering has not been lowered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) was right to remind the Opposition that they should give any evidence they have to the Tyrrell committee. He was right also to accuse the Opposition of being irresponsible.
I welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), who agrees with our statement that the risk to humans is distant. I support his closing remark, that British beef is safe. He asked me about the labelling of feeding stuffs. As I said in the House last Thursday, the draft EEC directive on the labelling of feeding stuffs was agreed last January. The Government have not refused to introduce the regulations, but want to implement them in concert with our European partners. We are working on the detail of the regulations now. They will be a matter not for the Food Safety Bill but for the feeding stuffs regulations.
The hon. Member for Truro accepts the scientific advice generally, but asks us to ignore it in respect of pigs and poultry. The hon. Gentleman accepts advice to undertake research into one area, but rejects advice that other research should not be extended or begun.
Opposition Members make the assumption that cats have contracted BSE from pet food. I repeat: we have followed the best advice, but if further advice or information is available, I am sure that Dr. Tyrrell will bring it to our attention. I am glad that the hon. Member for Truro distanced himself from the mass slaughtering claims. We keep records of calves, and we will ensure that records of diseased animals will be kept for many years. We have acknowledged the possibility of maternal


transmission, and do not work on the assumption that it will never occur. If it does, we have the safeguards in place to deal with it.
Heads are removed from animal carcases before the splitting of them for the extraction of head meat. Again, because we have an open mind, we will happily take any further advice that Tyrrell may give. It is right to keep an open mind when it comes to dealing with head splitting.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) was also right to criticise the Opposition for creating newspaper headlines that, inadvertently or otherwise, cause food scares. The Opposition claim that they are not doing that deliberately, in which case I accuse them of a worse crime—that of total ignorance. My hon. Friend is right to insist that decisions are made on soundly based advice, which is our policy and that of our predecessors. A former Agriculture Minister urged to eliminate TB said, in the European context:
We also wanted to ensure that the proposed Community action against swine fever was soundly based and that we should not have to introduce methods for eradicating bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis which were different from those we already use, other than for sound scientific reasons."—[Official Report, 11 May 1977; Vol. 931, col. 1502.]
Who said that? They are the words of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) when he was an agriculture spokesman in the last Labour Government. All we are seeking is to ensure that our policy also is soundly based.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He will agree that we can assure the public that British beef can be eaten with confidence.

Mr. Maclean: I agree entirely. I can give that assurance. My right hon. Friend the Minister, the hon. Member for Truro and the chief medical officer have given that assurance.
The Government's policy is based on the best scientific advice available. Our safety precautions are like my famous belt and two pairs of braces. First, we destroy all the cows with BSE and do spot checks in markets and abattoirs. The ultimate precaution is that we cut out the brain, spinal cord and other specified offal from every cow in the slaugtherhouse to be ultra-safe. That is going further than the experts recommended. That is a belt-and-two-pairs-of-braces approach, and that is why we can say that British beef is safe.
The Opposition like to give the impression of an epidemic of unprecedented proportions ravaging through the land. Since the disease started, we have killed more than 13,000 cows in three years. When we were in the middle of the brucellosis eradication scheme and the TB eradication scheme, we were killing 30,000 and 50,000 animals each year. The extent of the disease should be kept in proportion.
The Opposition say, "Too little, too late." That is their usual line. If they continue to maintain it, they must explain why they would fly in the face of the expert advice of Professor Southwood and his committee and Dr. Tyrrell and his committee. I notice that they have precious little to say about the pronouncement by the chief medical officer that British beef is safe. They will not talk about it, because the CMO has shot their fox. They are not sure whether to imply that beef is not safe in the hope that it will gain them votes, or to say that we should do more to stop the panic that they stirred up in the first place in the hope that that will gain them votes.
The Opposition have been tabling questions trying to create a scare about pigs with bad legs in Yorkshire. They claim that we were secretive. The reason why they knew about the pigs was that they obtained the information from the press, which in turn obtained it from us. The press showed interest days before they started tabling questions. Giving information to the press is a mighty funny way to keep a secret.
Here are 27 reports, listed by the Southwood committee, on BSE; here is the Tyrrell report; and here are the countless press releases and statistics on BSE that we have issued. Hansard records the hundreds of written answers that I have given.
The present scare took off not because of any new BSE risk or because health was in jeopardy but because we published information on a cat with encephalopathy. We have nothing to hide and the public have nothing to fear, but they must reach their own judgment on the evidence.
Everything that should have been done has been done. Everything that can be done is being done. If we find that something should be done, it will be done, as throughout this saga, on the basis of the best scientific advice available. We will not take action based on emotion, political expediency or guesswork. This disease is too important to be treated in such a silly way as the Labour party would have us do. Its behaviour throughout, as it has tried to stir up one food scare after another, and its misjudgment in having the debate today show that it is not fit for government, and its refusal to back the judgment of Professor Southwood, Dr. Tyrrell and their independent experts exposes the shallowness of its thoughts. Worst of all, by ignoring the words of Sir Donald Acheson, the chief medical officer, who said
I therefore have no hesitation in saying that beef can be eaten safely by everyone",
the Labour party has condemned itself as a party of cynical opportunists, twisting and turning with every move of the opinion polls. How many votes does the Labour party expect to get out of this sordid little episode?
The Government, on the other hand, have taken the honourable position throughout to safeguard public health. Despite the clear evidence of top independent experts that the risk to humans is remote, and despite the historical evidence of the past 250 years of no danger to humans from scrapie in sheep, the Government have not taken any chances. That is why I urge the House to vote against the Opposition's motion and to back the Government.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 316.

Division No. 218]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bidwell, Sydney


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Blair, Tony


Allen, Graham
Boateng, Paul


Alton, David
Bradley, Keith


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Buchan, Norman


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Buckley, George J.


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Caborn, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Callaghan, Jim


Beckett, Margaret
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Bell, Stuart
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Canavan, Dennis


Bermingham, Gerald
Cartwright, John






Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McAllion, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McAvoy, Thomas


Clay, Bob
Macdonald, Calum A.


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McFall, John


Cohen, Harry
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Coleman, Donald
McLeish, Henry


Corbett, Robin
McWilliam, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Madden, Max


Cousins, Jim
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cox, Tom
Marek, Dr John


Crowther, Stan
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cryer, Bob
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Cunningham, Dr John
Martlew, Eric


Dalyell, Tam
Maxton, John


Darling, Alistair
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Meale, Alan


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Michael, Alun


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dewar, Donald
Morgan, Rhodri


Dixon, Don
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dobson, Frank
Mowlam, Marjorie


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mullin, Chris


Eastham, Ken
Murphy, Paul


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Nellist, Dave


Faulds, Andrew
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Patchett, Terry


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fisher, Mark
Quin, Ms Joyce


Flannery, Martin
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Reid, Dr John


Foster, Derek
Richardson, Jo


Foulkes, George
Robinson, Geoffrey


Fraser, John
Rogers, Allan


Fyfe, Maria
Rooker, Jeff


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


George, Bruce
Rowlands, Ted


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Sedgemore, Brian


Gould, Bryan
Sheerman, Barry


Graham, Thomas
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Short, Clare


Grocott, Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Hardy, Peter
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Soley, Clive


Henderson, Doug
Spearing, Nigel


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Steinberg, Gerry


Home Robertson, John
Strang, Gavin


Hood, Jimmy
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Vaz, Keith


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Walley, Joan


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Illsley, Eric
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Ingram, Adam
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Janner, Greville
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Wilson, Brian


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Winnick, David


Lambie, David
Worthington, Tony


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Wray, Jimmy


Lewis, Terry



Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mrs. Llin Golding.


Loyden, Eddie





NOES


Adley, Robert
Aspinwall, Jack


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkins, Robert


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Baldry, Tony


Amess, David
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Amos, Alan
Batiste, Spencer


Arbuthnot, James
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Beith, A. J.


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bendall, Vivian


Ashby, David
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)





Bevan, David Gilroy
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Body, Sir Richard
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gorst, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gow, Ian


Boswell, Tim
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gregory, Conal


Bowis, John
Ground, Patrick


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Grylls, Michael


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hague, William


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hanley, Jeremy


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hannam, John


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hargreaves, Ken(Hyndburn)


Buck, Sir Antony
Harris, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Haselhurst, Alan


Burns, Simon
Hawkins, Christopher


Burt, Alistair
Hayes, Jerry


Butcher, John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Butler, Chris
Hayward, Robert


Butterfill, John
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hill, James


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hind, Kenneth


Carrington, Matthew
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carttiss, Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cash, William
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Chope, Christopher
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Churchill, Mr
Howells, Geraint


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Irvine, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Irving, Sir Charles


Cormack, Patrick
Jack, Michael


Couchman, James
Janman, Tim


Cran, James
Jessel, Toby


Critchley, Julian
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Devlin, Tim
Key, Robert


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kilfedder, James


Dicks, Terry
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dorrell, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kirkwood, Archy


Dover, Den
Knapman, Roger


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Eggar, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knox, David


Evennett, David
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lang, Ian


Fallon, Michael
Latham, Michael


Favell, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lee, John (Pendle)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lightbown, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lilley, Peter


Forth, Eric
Livsey, Richard


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Franks, Cecil
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Freeman, Roger
Lord, Michael


French, Douglas
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Fry, Peter
McCrindle, Robert


Gale, Roger
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gardiner, George
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gill, Christopher
Maclean, David


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McLoughlin, Patrick






McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Sims, Roger


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Madel, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Major, Rt Hon John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Malins, Humfrey
Speed, Keith


Mans, Keith
Speller, Tony


Maples, John
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Marlow, Tony
Squire, Robin


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mates, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maude, Hon Francis
Steen, Anthony


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stern, Michael


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stevens, Lewis


Mellor, David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Miller, Sir Hal
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Mills, Iain
Stokes, Sir John


Miscampbell, Norman
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sumberg, David


Mitchell, Sir David
Summerson, Hugo


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Nelson, Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thorne, Neil


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thurnham, Peter


Norris, Steve
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Tracey, Richard


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tredinnick, David


Page, Richard
Trippier, David


Paice, James
Trotter, Neville


Patnick, Irvine
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter


Pawsey, James
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Walden, George


Portillo, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Price, Sir David
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Raffan, Keith
Wallace, James


Rathbone, Tim
Waller, Gary


Redwood, John
Ward, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rhodes James, Robert
Watts, John


Riddick, Graham
Wells, Bowen


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wheeler, Sir John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Whitney, Ray


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wiggin, Jerry


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wilkinson, John


Rowe, Andrew
Wilshire, David


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Ryder, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wolfson, Mark


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Wood, Timothy


Sayeed, Jonathan
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, David (Dover)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')



Shelton, Sir William
Tellers for the Noes:


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Tony Durant.


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)



Shersby, Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 92.

Division No. 219]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Franks, Cecil


Alexander, Richard
Freeman, Roger


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
French, Douglas


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Gale, Roger


Amess, David
Gardiner, George


Amos, Alan
Gill, Christopher


Arbuthnot, James
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Goodlad, Alastair


Ashby, David
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Aspinwall, Jack
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Atkins, Robert
Gorst, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Gow, Ian


Baldry, Tony
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Batiste, Spencer
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Beggs, Roy
Gregory, Conal


Bendall, Vivian
Ground, Patrick


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hague, William


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Body, Sir Richard
Hanley, Jeremy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hannam, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Boswell, Tim
Harris, David


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Haselhurst, Alan


Bowis, John
Hawkins, Christopher


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hayes, Jerry


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hayward, Robert


Brazier, Julian
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Bright, Graham
Hill, James


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hind, Kenneth


Buck, Sir Antony
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Burns, Simon
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Burt, Alistair
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Butcher, John
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Butler, Chris
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Butterfill, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Howells, Geraint


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Carttiss, Michael
Irvine, Michael


Cash, William
Irving, Sir Charles


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Jack, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Janman, Tim


Chapman, Sydney
Jessel, Toby


Chope, Christopher
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Churchill, Mr
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Key, Robert


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Kilfedder, James


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Cormack, Patrick
Kirkhope, Timothy


Couchman, James
Knapman, Roger


Cran, James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knowles, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knox, David


Day, Stephen
Lang, Ian


Devlin, Tim
Latham, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Lawrence, Ivan


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lee, John (Pendle)


Dunn, Bob
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Eggar, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evennett, David
Lightbown, David


Fallon, Michael
Livsey, Richard


Favell, Tony
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lord, Michael


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Fishburn, John Dudley
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fookes, Dame Janet
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maclean, David


Forth, Eric
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael






McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Major, Rt Hon John
Speller, Tony


Malins, Humfrey
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mans, Keith
Squire, Robin


Maples, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Maude, Hon Francis
Stern, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stevens, Lewis


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mellor, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Miller, Sir Hal
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Mills, Iain
Stokes, Sir John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mitchell, Sir David
Sumberg, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Summerson, Hugo


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Nelson, Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thorne, Neil


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thurnham, Peter


Page, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Paice, James
Tracey, Richard


Patnick, Irvine
Tredinnick, David


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Trippier, David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Trotter, Neville


Pawsey, James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Porter, David (Waveney)
Viggers, Peter


Portillo, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Price, Sir David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Raffan, Keith
Walden, George


Rathbone, Tim
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Redwood, John
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Waller, Gary


Rhodes James, Robert
Ward, John


Riddick, Graham
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Watts, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wells, Bowen


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wheeler, Sir John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Whitney, Ray


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Widdecombe, Ann


Rowe, Andrew
Wiggin, Jerry


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wilkinson, John


Ryder, Richard
Wilshire, David


Sackville, Hon Tom
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Winterton, Nicholas


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarf)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Shelton, Sir William
Yeo, Tim


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shersby, Michael



Sims, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. Nicholas Baker.


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)






NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Home Robertson, John


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Hood, Jimmy


Allen, Graham
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Alton, David
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Armstrong, Hilary
Illsley, Eric


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Barron, Kevin
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Beckett, Margaret
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McAvoy, Thomas


Bidwell, Sydney
McFall, John


Blair, Tony
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Boateng, Paul
McLeish, Henry


Bradley, Keith
Madden, Max


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Marek, Dr John


Buchan, Norman
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Callaghan, Jim
Martlew, Eric


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Maxton, John


Canavan, Dennis
Meacher, Michael


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Meale, Alan


Cohen, Harry
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Morgan, Rhodri


Cousins, Jim
Mullin, Chris


Cox, Tom
Murphy, Paul


Cryer, Bob
Nellist, Dave


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Patchett, Terry


Dalyell, Tam
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Reid, Dr John


Dewar, Donald
Rogers, Allan


Dixon, Don
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Sedgemore, Brian


Eastham, Ken
Short, Clare


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Skinner, Dennis


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Foster, Derek
Soley, Clive


Foulkes, George
Spearing, Nigel


Fraser, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Fyfe, Maria
Strang, Gavin


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Vaz, Keith


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Graham, Thomas
Winnick, David


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)



Grocott, Bruce
Tellers for the Noes:


Hardy, Peter
Mr. Andrew Welsh and Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones.


Haynes, Frank

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House supports the Government's determination to eradicate bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and commends Her Majesty's Government for basing its policy and actions to secure the safety of food on the best scientific advice and for the prompt implementation of the recommendations of its independent expert committees as the best means of safeguarding public and animal health.

Social Charter

[Relevant document: Un-numbered explanatory memorandum submitted by the Department of Employment on 24 November 1989 on a Community charter of fundamental rights.]

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9978/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Employment on 15th March 1990 relating to Commission action programme relating to the implementation of the Social Charter, and endorses the Government's view that a key factor in ensuring that the achievement of the single market has a social dimension is to continue efforts to stimulate job creation and bring down unemployment.
Tonight's debate focuses on the European Commission's proposal for an action programme to implement the social charter. However, the issues go wider than that. The debate raises the question of the sort of Europe that we are seeking to build, and how we can ensure that that Europe can best serve the interests of its people. The debate is an opportunity to set out the United Kingdom's position on the social action programme in the context of the challenges faced by Britain and her Community partners.
A key challenge that faces the Community is the growth of international competition. Europe is a trading community: it simply cannot survive through protectionism or state subsidy. The Community must compete with Japan, north America and the fast-growing economies of the far east. At the same time, it must be attractive as a market for inward investment. In Europe, we also face the challenges of major demographic and technological change. The Community must respond to all those challenges, and the single European market in 1992 is our major response. It holds out the prospect of new prosperity for the people of the Community.
At the Madrid European Council in June last year, all Community countries agreed that achieving the single market offered the best prospect for improving living standards and working conditions and creating new jobs within the Community. However, there are some differences of view within the Community—and within individual countries—when it comes to the so-called "social dimension". Some fear that more intense competition will lead to pressure on businesses to reduce standards in terms and conditions of employment, and therefore conclude that the Community needs a wide-ranging programme of regulation on employment and social issues. In response, the Commission has produced the social charter and the social action programme to implement the "social dimension". The British Government—like Europe's employers—take a different view. We believe that the first requirement for the "social dimension" is for action at Community level to increase the prospects for existing jobs and for the creation of new ones.
Community countries agreed at the European Council last June that the creation of jobs for the people of Europe is our top priority. It is not hard to understand why the Council decided that: about 14 million people are still unemployed in the European Community, including more than 7 million who have been unemployed for a year or

more. That is the crucial issue in the "social dimension", because throughout the Community it is the unemployed whose living standards are the lowest. That view is firmly borne out by the United Kingdom experience.
By following a policy of deregulation, devolution and decentralisation, Britain has set one of the best records on jobs in the Community. Employment is at record levels; we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the Community; and we have succeeded in cutting long-term unemployment by about half compared with the total two years ago. It is because of our record on creating jobs that we oppose measures from the Community that might increase costs, create barriers to employment and prevent jobs from being created.
That is why we believe that the social charter is unnecessary and that the social action programme to implement it could imperil the success of the single market—the engine of job creation—with restrictive and unnecessary regulations that are in nobody's interests, least of all the 14 million unemployed people in the Community.
The real social dimension is not about regulation, but about raising people's living standards and levels of prosperity through job creation throughout the Community.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Surely the social dimension has everything to do with regulation. If there is to be a single market—the Government wholeheartedly concur with it—who will regulate it? The labour market is part of the social dimension. If we are talking about a labour market, surely the Minister should talk about the regulation of the social market, which in our terms is industrial relations legislation. Although I agree that the level of employment is a significant social factor, is not the regulation of the social market of great importance to a single market economy?

Mr. Eggar: In view of the hon. Gentleman's beliefs, surely he accepts that where there must be regulation, for example in industrial relations, it is right to regulate at national rather than Community level. The Community has a role in other areas, an obvious one of which is health and safety. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not demur from that. Given the freedom of workers in the Community to work in any country, they should expect the same standards as exist in their country to apply wherever they work. Clearly, that is an area of competence which is rightly the Commission's.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Where do migrant workers stand with regard to freedom to move from one Community country to another? Will they have the same right to move or will Turkish gastarbeiter be confined to the Federal Republic of Germany and north African workers to France? As many of them will have spent many years in Germany or France, will they have the same right to move freely within the Community?

Mr. Eggar: The answer is that we do not know because we have not yet seen the directives of the Commission. We must wait for them. At the moment that matter is left to national Governments. We strongly believe in the idea of subsidiarity—not doing things at the Community level that are best done at national level. We will almost inevitably argue that the matter should be left to national


Governments. However, we are not making up our mind now in advance of seeing the specific directives. I am sure that the House and the Select Committee on European Legislation, chaired by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), will examine them.
When viewed against the criteria that I have outlined the Commission's social action programme is worrying. It represents the Commission's view of the proposals needed to implement the social charter. The programme does not include the proposals themselves, nor much detail as to what the individual proposals are likely to include.
About 47 proposals are to be considered, alongside existing Community business, in the next two years. The House will understand that that is a formidable legislative agenda. We will consider on their merits all the proposals that come forward and apply to them the test of the three criteria that were agreed at the Madrid Council. Will the proposal encourage the creation of jobs for the people of Europe? If it will, is action at Community level the right level at which to take it? If it is, does the proposal respect the different national traditions and practices? To that we want to add whether the proposal, if passed, is likely to be properly and effectively implemented.
As currently presented and judged against those criteria, we believe that we will have few problems with more than a third of the 47 proposals. That third includes proposals on such things as health and safety, equal opportunities and freedom of movement. We believe that those issues are appropriate for European-wide standard setting and are likely to be consistent with the criteria that I outlined earlier. Insufficient information is currently available on a further third of the proposals on which to form a view, but we believe that we are likely to have some difficulties with the remainder.
I should like to illustrate some of the difficulties that we shall probably face. The House might like to know that the Community is considering statutory weekly and daily rest periods and perhaps a ban on night work. We wonder whether the full implications of that have been seriously considered by the Commission. Workers may not be able to work overtime, even if it is available and they want to work it. When factory workers have worked out the implications of that on the productivity deals that they have negotiated will they be willing to see those deals effectively ripped up and the financial benefits denied to them? Those are the types of issue that might have to be addressed as a result of the proposals that we expect from the Commission.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: That is the line of argument advanced by the defender of the great British paper boy. The idea is to invent something ludicrous and insist that it is up to the Community to disprove it. The Minister has suggested that night work might be banned by the Community, but that appears nowhere in any Community document, nor is it supported by any reference to speeches emanating from Europe. Where did the Minister get that example from? Did he just make it up?

Mr. Eggar: I did not just make it up—the hon. Gentleman should know me better than that.
Proposals are coming forward from the Commission that deal with the regulation of night work. The effect of

those regulations may be to make it impossible to have people working at night. That is extremely serious for companies that rely on continuous working, and has all sorts of implications for industry that needs safety cover. The hon. Gentleman is putting his head in the sand if he does not understand the likely implications of the proposals that might be put forward by the Commission.

Mr. William Cash: My hon. Friend will know about the grave concern at the implications of the social charter and the action programme. As a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation I recently had the opportunity to go to Brussels and hear Mrs. Vasso Papandreou on this very subject. She is a determined lady and clearly has every intention of putting through her proposals.
In relation to the latter category—the one third of difficult matters—to which my hon. Friend referred, there are two separate questions. The first is the issue of competence and whether the Community has the power to be able to introduce these issues, which we can shunt off to the courts, although I would exercise the right of veto and have nothing to do with them. It is about time we started talking tough on that issue. I am looking to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who knows what I mean.
Secondly, subsidiarity is a double-edged sword. I invite the Minister to consider the following question. If the definition—to which he rightly applied his question—is that that which is best done at local level should be done there, and that which is best done at the higher level should be done there, and the Commission has decided that it is going to abrogate to itself the higher level because it thinks that is best, how does his argument equate with the timetable for the inter-governmental conference when questions related to subsidiarity will be determined? Can he give any idea of the timetable that will be followed so that we know where we are before we go any further with this programme?

Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend raised a number of complex and inter-related questions.

Mr. Cash: They were simple.

Mr. Eggar: If they were so simple, my hon. Friend took quite a long time to explain a few simple propositions.
These are difficult issues that must be considered in the light of the specific proposals from the Commission, and we shall have to make up our minds how to tackle each directive and proposal as it comes forward. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I am sorry that I cannot give him a fuller answer.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: To clarify the issue, which is obviously becoming complex, will the Minister answer the following question: if the Community puts forward a proposal to ban night or day work, or anything else, and it is passed with a majority, do we simply have to implement that decision whether or not Parliament likes it or the Government think that it is rubbish? Is that true or not?

Mr. Eggar: I wish that matters were as simple as my hon. Friend postulates. Of course, we shall have to look at the proposals in each directive. My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that one of the questions we shall consider is the system of voting that applies—whether


there is unanimity and which article it comes under. In the light of that we would argue the merits of the case. But if we believed that the proposal from the Commission was covered by the wrong article and, therefore, a different voting system—a qualified majority rather than unanimity—we would never exclude the possibility of taking the matter to the European Court, with all the implications that that has. My hon. Friend will not be at all surprised to hear me say that.
The Commission may also bring forward a proposal to regulate part-time and temporary work, which it apparently regards as atypical work. Perhaps the Commission is unaware that 6 million people in Britain work part time, and that 90 per cent. of them do so because they want to, not because they have to. We must question the motivation behind the Commission's attempt to introduce a proposal that might reduce the number of part-time jobs in the British economy.
We want to help to build a forward and outward-looking Community which can seize new opportunities and meet new challenges. We are not opposed to regulation in itself but we are strongly opposed to unnecessary regulation that burdens businesses and therefore destroys jobs. Regulation is not what the social dimension is about. The social dimension must not be about protecting traditional working patterns at the expense of jobs for unemployed people. The social dimension that we need in the Community is one that will encourage enterprise and opportunity for people to make choices about their own working lives. If we burden the Community's industry with new and unnecessary regulation in the name of the social dimension, we shall negate the single market and, in so doing, undermine job creation and hence the living standards of all our citizens.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Once again we have heard an analysis from the Department of Employment school of fantasy of all that is ill in the European Community—particularly the Minister's absurd suggestion that the Community might ban night work at some stage. I suspect that that may come as a surprise to people working in the medical services throughout Europe who are, by definition almost, engaged in night work. It is inconceivable that people in Europe will want to do without night nurses or doctors——

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Or bobbies.

Mr. Lloyd: Or bobbies, as my hon. Friend——

Mr. Skinner: To check up on the Minister at night.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend——

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that a proposal that may well emerge from the Commission is that everyone be entitled to 12 hours rest a day and at least 36 hours rest a week, in an uninterrupted mode. Cannot he conceive of circumstances in which that might make it impossible to have night cover in hospitals?

Mr. Lloyd: If the Minister seriously suggests that there might be pressure that would threaten night work in hospitals, he is living in a peculiar world inhabited only by the small group of people who voted against the social charter—the British Conservative group and the French communists, a fairly unique combination.

Mr. Eggar: Stop wriggling.

Mr. Lloyd: I am not wriggling; I am happy to debate night work with the Minister through the night, here or in the many places in which night work will continue in future.
It was a sign of ministerial desperation that the Minister should once again pick on the trivial. This is the same Minister who gave us the spectre of the disappearing paper boys. Even the Minister would concede that not only was that nonsense then but that it is nonsense now. There was never anything serious in that, just as there was nothing serious in what the Minister said in the debate. His speech consisted of the usual tired old slogans, such as the Government are in control of unemployment. We learnt on Thursday that unemployment has increased. Would the Minister care to intervene again and tell the House when he next expects unemployment not to go up? Obviously he does not feel confident enough to speak about that. Will it be next month or the month after, or will it be next year? Does he have any views at all on when unemployment in Britain will begin to fall again? He does not think that that is important.

Mr. John Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lloyd: Of course I will, if the hon. Gentleman proposes to answer that question.

Mr. Butterfill: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when under a Labour Government we had 43 months of an uninterrupted fall in unemployment?

Mr. Lloyd: I would take that question seriously if the hon. Gentleman could give me a clear indication of when unemployment will fall to the level at which it stood when the Government came to office. That is a much more serious question because unemployment in Britain is still far above the level at which it stood when the Prime Minister came to Downing street.

Mr. Butterfill: rose——

Mr. Lloyd: I shall not give way because the hon. Gentleman has yet to make a serious point.
The Opposition have a much more serious but much more relaxed view of the action programme. Nobody could seriously say that of itself the action programme is anything other than a greatly watered down version of the original social charter. I am sure Conservative Members will want to pay tribute to the Prime Minister for that because she made determined efforts to ensure that there is no semblance of a social framework within which people in Britain or in the wider Community can work. The cost of that will not be suffered by ex Cabinet Ministers, present Ministers or Conservative Members until they become unemployed at the next general election. It is suffered by ordinary people throughout Europe. The cost will be borne not just by the 14 million unemployed people that the Minister mentioned, but by the millions who will have to endure deplorable working conditions that are imposed throughout Europe and in Britain by the Government.
The Minister says that the Government are seriously pursuing the benefits of the single market. Let us examine the impact of the single market. Louvain university recently carried out a study into regions of traditional industry. The two in Britain that were examined were south Yorkshire and Strathclyde and the study concluded


that the future in the single market for both regions was extremely grim unless there was some countervailing move by the Government. There was no suggestion that of itself the single market would produce a magic overnight dividend. The study said that unregulated competitive pressures in the market would be greatly to the disadvantage of those traditional regions. The Minister frowns. I am surprised that he does not know about this study.
Another study by Professor Amin Rajan was published by the Industrial Society. It suggests that the United Kingdom would have to bear the loss of about 200,000 jobs in the single market unless action was taken to stem that. That is out of a total of 500,000 jobs that would be lost throughout the Community. That is the potential of the single market and it will be realised unless there is some countervailing action by Governments and action by the Community.
Let us look at the rise of the European company, in which I presently have a constituency interest. The Minister said that such matters are best left to national Governments and I think that he mentioned collective bargaining.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will the hon Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lloyd: I shall do so in a moment.
Perhaps Conservative Members have already dismissed the rise of European companies. I mentioned today an announcement made by a company that operates in my constituency, GEC-Alsthom, which has declared 180 redundancies. At least some of those have come about since the merger of GEC with the French company Alsthom. The joint company has decided to transfer some activities from Trafford Park in Manchester to France. The result, of course, is job losses.
At least one of the reasons why that could happen is that France has statutory rights to information and consultation that do not exist here. The first that the work force in my constituency knew about this was today, when the company announced its decision to the world. The fact that our workers do not have the protection of a right to information or consultation puts them at a serious disadvantage in the competitive decisions being made by the new Euro-companies.
We need a framework of European action, not to supplant national legislation or collective bargaining, but to recognise that, at the level of the Euro-company, national legislation and collective bargaining simply will not control what happens. In the context of GEC, collective bargaining proved irrelevant.

Mr. Hind: In what way would the social charter, and the directives that will follow it, stop the loss of jobs foreseen in the Louvain study, as a consequence of the implementation of the single market in 1992? Surely all that the social charter will do is to increase the costs of industry and make competitive factors much more important, so the desire to get rid of jobs will be greater rather than less.

Mr. Lloyd: This is what the Government frequently refer to as the level playing field. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that we should compete with

Portugal, with a minimum working age of 14, or Greece, with a minimum working age of 12? He should understand why I feel that we cannot compete on those terms. In the example that I gave in my constituency, the company did not have to give information because legislation does not force it to do so on a European-wide basis, and such legislation would have made a difference to the loss of 180 jobs in my constituency.
The European Community has already had an impact on domestic legislation. The Government have been forced through the European Court on a number of occasions—for example, on legislation enforcing sexual equality, particularly at work. The Equal Pay Act 1970 was amended by the Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations 1983 to introduce the concept of equal pay for equal work, because of such a move. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was also amended as a result of the European Court ruling. With a Conservative Government who are determined to push back the rights of workers in Britain, it is important that we have some framework to offer more than they are prepared to offer.
For example, the document says:
The fact remains however that the difficulties encountered on the labour market have led to the development of wages practices which no longer afford those concerned a decent standard of living.
That is addressed to Britain. One in five people in the north-west are low paid by any definition, and in my area of Greater Manchester, two in five are low paid, and the bulk of the low paid are women. The Government have no intention of doing anything about low pay. It is still something of a mystery to me why they did not abolish the wages councils—we all know that that is their real intent, and the Minister has not made any secret about it.
The action programme will give a framework within which a Labour Government can bring in a minimum wage, and we must applaud that.

Mr. Skinner: We can do that anyway.

Mr. Lloyd: Of course, there is nothing to stop a Labour Government from introducing it when they come to power, but for the next two years it is unlikely that there will be one. The Government say that they do not operate in accordance with Europe, but I have already shown how equal pay and sex discrimination legislation have been amended, unwillingly, by the Government because European legislation guarantees those minimum rights for British workers and British women at work.
If a Labour Government were in power, those provisions would have been introduced, in accordance with the original legislation that we implemented. My hon. Friend is right to say that there is nothing in the measure that would stop a Labour Government going further, but there is nothing to prevent the present Government from further worsening working conditions.

Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lloyd: Not on this point.

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman ought to give way.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman does not need to lecture me on whether I should give way.
The Government are being hypocritical if they say that they take no interest in what is happening in the rest of Europe. The action programme makes particular references to training, for example. It is interesting that the


Minister did not mention that aspect, because only four to six weeks ago training was all the rage among Government Ministers. The Secretary of State for Employment was up and down like a yo-yo at press conferences and on television, extolling the virtues of the Government's training policies. The reality is that they have lost their way—so much so, we are beginning to witness again all the usual short-term phenomena and their effects on the economy, including undertraining of the British worker.
Recently, the Under-Secretary gave a parliamentary answer on average expenditure by employers on vocational training. Britain is supposed to lead the world in insurance, but it is worrying that that industry spends less on training its employees than France, Germany, and Denmark, the same as Portugal, and less than Belgium. The Minister makes no mention of what the Government will do to outdistance the rest of Europe.
The same Government are nevertheless prepared to take from the European social fund £111 million this year, to fund the YTS scheme. The Minister looks puzzled—perhaps he did not know about that. A considerable percentage of the money that funds the YTS comes from Europe. The Government unashamedly take that money, yet will not acknowledge that British training lags way behind the rest of the EEC. That is why a framework is needed to impose standards that do not currently exist.
When the Minister winds up, perhaps he will say whether he believes that the paper boy is still under threat, and that Britain is still threatened by other European countries prepared to employ youngsters who are little more than children and thus undercut British employers. I mentioned the 12-year-olds at work in Greece, and the 14-year-olds employed in Portugal, but the Minister does not want legislation to control minimum ages.
On both moral and economic grounds, it would be the height of foolishness for Britain not to support a European standard. The Minister says that Britain has no problems in that respect, but a number of proposals will be coming from the Community this year. He referred to atypical employment, and that word is used by the EEC. We have seen a massive growth in part-time working in Britain, and one consequence of that has been massive deregulation of the labour market. Workers who would have enjoyed employment protection had they been in full-time jobs do not receive it as part-time workers.
A Labour Government will introduce legislation on standards for part-time and home workers, who currently have only the most tenuous relationship with the labour market.

Mr. Eggar: Ah.

Mr. Lloyd: The Minister says, "Ah." That is most curious. Let us examine the nine out of 10 people who he says prefer part-time work. We are not opposed to part-time working and to people obtaining the kind of employment that suits their circumstances. Nevertheless,

the nine out of 10 people who prefer part-time work would also like the security of pay rates and conditions that approximate to those enjoyed by full-time workers, and the kind of job security that does not currently exist.
The idea that the Minister is trying to peddle that part-time work in Thatcher's Britain offers security, decency or permanency is so ridiculous that it warrants no more than mockery. If he believes that, he should visit with me some of the sweat shops in London, or of any other major city, and ask part-time workers whether they prefer part-time work without any social conditions to prop up their employment rights.
Will the Government oppose the directives on working time, on atypical work, on proof of employment contracts or on pregnant women? Will they use the veto? The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) posed that question and it is incumbent on the Minister to answer it. Whatever our different views, the House should know where the Government stand.
The Minister will say that it is too early to say. He said that he opposes some of the directives. If his worst fears come to fruition, will the Government oppose those directives? Will they oppose the third action programme for women? I noticed with interest that when the Minister was talking of the conditions for acceptance, he mentioned the need for subsidiarity and for maintaining national cultures. The recommendations on child care would fit all those criteria. Will the Government welcome the recommendation that is likely to be made by the Community on child care, or will they go further and implement it and begin to build the care facilities for women who want to work but cannot do so because of the lack of facilities? That is important for millions of people, in whom the Minister claims to have some interest.
I mentioned the need for and right to information and for consultation to prevent a situation such as that in my constituency, where 180 of my constituents and those of my geographical neighbours will lose their jobs. They did not know what would happen to them, although they have what would be regarded as a traditionally strong union, the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions. Despite that protection, their jobs will he lost. Will the Minister ensure that they have information to enable them to fight, through collective bargaining and the principle of negotiation, without two hands tied behind their back?
Those are the important features of the action programme. It is no panacea. It does not promise to cure our industrial and economic woes overnight, but it provides a minimum level of protection which is not provided by the Government but which any worthwhile Government would go beyond. A Labour Government will most certainly go beyond it, but if the Minister does not provide people with the minimum level of protection, all his cant about seeking to reduce unemployment and to protect people through the single market will lead lo tragedy for millions in the north and throughout Britain.

Mr. William Cash: The first point that I want to make is in respect of the timing of the debate. Fortunately, the Government have released their response to the report of the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of European Legislation. Without going into it, I simply want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that it is available in the Vote Office. It is a major step forward, because not only will we have the opportunity to consider European legislation and developments well in advance of debates but Special Standing Committees are to be set up to consider measures such as this, which we are discussing at a late hour in an almost empty House. There are other points in the Government's response that I applaud, but it is not necessary for me to go into them now.
During my altercation with my hon. Friend the Minister, we discussed whether this was a complex or a simple issue. It is complicated to deal with 47 directives and action programmes and the broad principles of the social charter, but it is hoped, and expected, that they will be considered properly by people who are versed in them because of their experience on Special Standing Committees. I hope that, at the inter-governmental conference, we will not sell the pass on the vague notion of subsidiarity, which I view with apprehension. As a political concept, it has advantages, but there will be considerable difficulties if, as a legal definition, it is incorporated in treaty amendments.
The explanatory memorandum dated 29 November was followed by a supplementary memorandum dated 6 January. Following the report on 28 March of the Select Committee on European Legislation, we have had to wait until 21 May before being able to debate it. I hope that the Government's proposals will deal with this serious problem.

Mr. Skinner: It is down to the Leader of the House.

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman says that it is down to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. The questions must be tackled, and we must pay tribute, albeit belatedly, to the Government for the fact that the procedures will be put in motion.
The substantive issues involved in the directives are more important matters. I say without the slightest criticism of my hon. Friend the Minister that, whatever one's view on them, it is not possible in the short time available to deal with the 47 action programmes, any one of which could be put in a Bill or semi-Bill and might easily take up one, two or even three months. To expect us to consider these matters not just at a late hour but in a relatively short time is an insult to the British Parliament.
I do not intend to criticise the Government—these faults are inherent in the system. We should seriously consider inverting our procedures to have regard to the pyramid of legislation that invades us because of our voluntary consent through the European Communities Act 1972 and to give a due proportion of time to matters that are important to my constituents and, as the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) said, to his constituents. I, too, have constituents who are employed by GEC-Alsthom and I share many of his worries, for the same reasons.
Macro issues arise with regard to the rump of the one third of these extremely difficult aspects with which we must deal. The minimum wages proposal is, as much as anything, one that has come from the German Government. If we are to be realistic and consider the issues of political, economic and monetary union and everything that goes with it, we must be aware that the Germans have recently increased their investment in the United Kingdom by 200 per cent., that they will not change their company structure and that they have control over the secretariats and standards of the Community.
That is no criticism of the Germans, but we must wake up and realise what is happening. Let me concentrate for a moment on one issue—minimum wages. The workers in Dusseldorf will insist on having a minimum wage set at their level. Those in Spain who are employed by Volkswagen's subsidiary, Seat, are having kittens at the moment because they know that the whole system is being orchestrated to provide an in-built advantage to Volkswagen's employees in Dusseldorf. The same will apply throughout the Community.
It is not my purpose to make a speech about all these questions tonight. Incidentally, I shall have the opportunity to debate them with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) at the Oxford union tomorrow night. Having said that, I think that we should be very wary of all the present proposals, of the proposal for a central bank and of the way in which the Franco-German axis is operating, which is implicit in the document, not because we do not want to remain in the Community but because, in fundamental questions such as those arising from the social charter—with some parts of which I agree but most of which I regard as unnecessary and avoidable—we must be sure that we do not end up surrendering to the interests of a Franco-German axis which exists for the benefit of a small proportion of the Community, rather than the Community as a whole. That is not what the European Community is all about; it is not communautaire.
I hope that, when the time comes, the Secretary of State and the Minister will regard some of these matters as of vital interest and, if necessary, exercise the veto on them rather than shunting them off to the European Court of Justice.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: We cannot exercise the veto.

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend says that we cannot exercise the veto. We could debate that. I think that it is still possible and that the arrangements stand.
We must make quite certain that the rest of the Community understands that the EC is a community and that it does not exist merely for the benefit of one or two of its members.

Mr. Tony Benn: I find myself in difficulty because I disagree profoundly with the two Front-Bench spokesmen. I want to tell the House why. I find the Minister's position—standing up, it seems, for Britain's interests against the proposals of the social charter—not very credible, coming, as it does, from a a party that took us into the Community, and into the single market,


without consulting the electorate. One element that has not been discussed by any hon. Member is the impact of all this on the elector's role, which is what concerns me.
I can understand the Cabinet's nightmare. Cabinet Ministers think that the social charter is a reincarnation of Frank Cousins and the Ministry of Technology, Barbara Castle and the Department of Employment and Productivity and George Brown and the Department of Economic Affairs put together, suddenly looming at them in the form of that radical Socialist, Jacques Delors, and they are fending it off. On the other hand, what they want to do—it is the precondition of their acceptance of entry into the ERM—is to hand this country over to market forces. They want everything to be determined by market forces, which are not accountable to the electorate either.
I presume that when the Minister said that we had to consider competition with other countries, he was thinking that if the Pacific rim countries can challenge us with cheaper goods because they pay lower wages, we shall have to bring our wages down to that level to survive. I do not agree with that. It is profoundly wrong.
I am afraid, however, that I did not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) either. He spoke for a party which, I gather from press reports, is on the point of endorsing the social charter—subject to our discussions on Wednesday, when my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I will be present to put a contrary view. But if one of us is in the lavatory, the other will have no seconder. We will have to keep together throughout the day. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford ignored the fact that, once a law or directive is agreed in Brussels by one Government, it is irreversible. Our electorate should be told the truth: whoever they vote for in the next general election, our Government will not be able to change that Brussels legislation.
Although I am not a labour law historian, I know that the Taff Vale judgment penalised the railwaymen in 1906. That legislation was repealed by the Liberals. After the general strike, the Conservatives introduced the trades disputes legislation and that was repealed by a Labour Government. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) introduced the Industrial Relations Act 1971 and the Labour Government repealed it.
However, I must warn my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford that legislation from Brussels cannot be repealed. It is open to either a Labour Government or a Conservative Government to agree to directives at a Council of Ministers that tie any other Government for ever because Community legislation cannot be reversed. Admittedly it may be easier to influence that legislation with majority voting than with the unanimity rule. Under the latter, if one country stands out, a directive cannot be introduced. However, that works the other way round—it cannot be repealed without everyone agreeing. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) referred to Franco-German interests in high wages. Those countries would be unlikely to repeal something that might assist employment in a place like Manchester.
We should be considering a range of issues. The provisions in the social charter contain many things that look attractive on paper. However, if they were implemented at the Brussels level, even with the principle of subsidiarity, masses of legislation would go through this House without our debating it.
Perhaps the Minister has discovered something about his civil servants that my civil servants were quick to

discover. They discovered that they did not have to bother with a Bill in the Queen's Speech when the legislation could be slipped in through Brussels. I remember a sensible proposal to standardise gas pipelines. Normally, such legislation would appear in a Bill. The Minister knows what it is like: Ministers queue up at the Queen's Speech committee or the legislation committee or whatever it is called under this Government and there is great pressure. Civil servants can bypass that process. They say, "Don't bother, Minister. We will have a word with COREPER and get it back as a directive. You just have to go to Brussels and agree to the proposal." The whole parliamentary process is then bypassed. That is the danger.
Democracy always hangs on a thread of public confidence. If I have to go to Chesterfield during the next general election and tell people that no matter who they vote for, we cannot deal with any matter that has been predetermined by previous Governments, are they going to bother to vote? If they vote thinking that we can change such legislation and we cannot, what will they say?
I loathe the word subsidiarity. However, subsidiarity should mean that everything should be considered at the lowest level, that is by the electors. It is not Parliament, but Ministers of any Goverment taking away the electors' powers. I was president of the Energy Council of Ministers during our presidency. I exercised the royal prerogative. In those circumstances, Ministers do not care about the House of Commons. We sit in solemn impotence. Even if few modifications were required, if Conservative or Labour Ministers had carried through such legislation at the Community level the House would be legally and constitutionally impotent.
The House must consider that problem. I have always believed that we are servants of the electorate and that sovereignty belongs to the people. They lend it to us in five-year terms. In the end, as stewards, we have to hand it back. We cannot tell them at the end that we gave it away to Jacques Delors. They would regard that as a breach of the Rousseau social contract. We are only the custodians of that power; we are not in a position in law, morality or constitutional practice to hand it to anybody else.

Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn: I do not wish to detain the House because other hon. Members wish to speak, but this point really must be made. In a strange way, it unites hon. Members who differ fundamentally about how power should be exercised by the House. I disagree strongly. I am not a nationalist. I am not in favour of whipping up feeling against the Franco-German axis—that would be a great mistake. We live in a world in which we must harmonise by consent. I do not share any of the political objectives of the hon. Member for Stafford, but perhaps I share with him the determination that the right to make that decision is taken by electors, not by Ministers in the name of the Crown in pursuit of objectives that have never been fully disclosed to the British people.
I have five questions that I ask people who have power, and I recommend them to the House. If I see someone who is powerful, be it a traffic warden, Rupert Murdoch, the head of a trade union or a Member of Parliament, I ask myself these five questions: "What power have you got? Where did you get it? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? How can we get rid of


you?" That last question is crucial. We cannot get rid of Jacques Delors; we cannot get rid of the Commission. We can get rid of a Government; but we cannot get rid of European legislation that a Government have entrenched during their period in office—be they a Labour Government with the Tories coming or the other way around.
I know that the House is empty, that it is late at night and that we are not having a vote. We have all the conditions for public neglect. The Galleries are not as full as hon. Members would like. However, the issue is fundamental. If we get it wrong we shall destroy parliamentary democracy in Britain. It is a time bomb ticking away under us. Perhaps the fuse is still long. When the British people discover that, whomever they vote for, they cannot change the laws under which the Government have governed, this House will collapse as a valid part of a democratic constitution. That is the argument that we should be having. When we have established it in the democratic way, we can resume the argument about how we should recommend the people to use the power that remains in their hands.

Mr. John Butterfill: It is probably worth remembering that the proposals in the draft charter go way beyond anything that is contained in the treaty of Rome or the Single European Act and that what is being proposed is totally novel and would extend the jurisdiction of the Community into matters that we never previously approved in this House or elsewhere in the Community. That may be good and there may be things in the charter that all of us would want. My hon. Friend the Minister of State stated that many things would be welcome. Equally, he said, and I agree, that there are other matters that would be profoundly unwelcome.
It was very helpful when the French presidency responded by saying that it felt that, in considering this matter further, there was a need to give greater consideration to the principle of subsidiarity. That is an important principle and I support it because, if the Community is to go forward harmoniously, it is important for us to decide which matters are important to be decided centrally as a group and which should be the preserve of national Parliaments. If we follow the principle of subsidiarity in doing those things locally which can best be done locally, we are not likely to have the conflicts that some hon. Members are worried may occur in the Community. We need to know what is acceptable and what is not.
What is clearly acceptable is health and safety at work. The British Government have quite a lot to teach other member countries. Our record on safety at work is very much better than those of most other Community Governments. It would therefore be to the benefit of all of us if those areas could be extended.
Equally, the mutual recognition of qualifications, which assists people to move across frontiers and to work in other Community countries, seems desirable. Once people move to other countries, it is, of course, important that they understand that they will be protected by health and safety at work measures which, before they go, they know will give them the same protection as that to which

they are entitled at home. The big difference is that, although a person who is going to work abroad will probably find out how many hours he must work, his pay and the general conditions of his employment before he goes, he may not understand the health and safety at work conditions because they may vary widely between Community countries.
Health and safety provisions are therefore both sensible and desirable. What is not sensible and desirable is to build on that a whole series of corporate interventionist measures, such as are beloved of the Labour party and which used to be so beloved of many other Socialists in the European Community, although they seem to be less fashionable now in some quarters. Understandably, they are beloved of Madam Papandreou, the Commissioner. One can see that they fall within her general social philosophy. However, those measures seem to me to be profoundly damaging, not just to the British economy, but to the economies of many—in fact, most—of the other European Community countries.
Minimum wages are a good example and I entirely agree with what my hon. Friends have said about that matter. Fixed working hours are another example. They may or may not be attractive. Minimum rest periods could well be attractive to certain Members of this honourable House. One can well understand that the prospect of not having to sit all night could command considerable support in the Chamber. The notion of a statutory role for trade unions might not get such unanimous support on both sides of the Chamber—nor, I imagine, would the statutory compensation and worker participation proposals, with their shades of Vredeling. We thought that we had won the battle over Mr. Vredeling and his proposals, but no, back they come via Madam Papandreou. It is the same all over again.
I am concerned that the Commission is intent on bulldozing these matters through in an entirely unsatisfactory way. Perhaps the most worrying thing is that we do not yet know what articles of the charter it intends to use. We might be less worried if we were absolutely certain that there would have to be unanimity in the Council on all these matters, but I understand—perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to confirm this—that there is a suggestion that Madam Papandreou believes that many of these measures can be got through under the guise of health and safety measures. That would mean qualified majority voting on issues that go way beyond what most of us believe the treaties comprise.
Perhaps my hon. Friend will also confirm my understanding that the Commission has already received legal advice that its proposals are outside the law and contrary to existing treaties but that, notwithstanding that, it still intends to go forward on that basis, forcing us and anybody who disagrees to go to the European Court. If that is true, it is an extremely worrying development and is yet another example of Commission empire-building, against which all of us must be permanently on our guard.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: When I entered the Chamber this evening, it was my intention to listen, so my contribution will be short. Nevertheless, I hope that it will provide more perspectives on the significance and importance of the document that we are considering. Of


course, it is a communication and individual items and proposals will appear later. However, the total shape must be recognised for what it is.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) advanced some constitutional issues on which I shall not comment, except to say that I have not heard them negatived anywhere. I should be interested to know whether any member of any party—certainly any member of the current Parliament—would give a negative response to his main thesis.
I should like first to comment on a subject on which the Select Committee on European Legislation has also commented, albeit indirectly: subsidiarity. Both the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and the Minister referred to it tonight. According to evidence given to the Committee by its legal adviser, Mr. Speaker's counsel, subsidiarity is not a hard rock but an area of shifting sands, and a dialogue between the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and the Minister—which has only just been published—demonstrates that.
The evidence that I gave, on behalf of that Committee, to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs about the operation of the Single European Act contains a lengthy memorandum about subsidiarity submitted by Mr. Speaker's counsel. I commend it to the Minister, and to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West: they will find if they read it that the only certainty about subsidiarity is that it is uncertain.
The issue arises in relation to conditions of work, a subject that forms part of the social charter. I am sorry that no hon. Member has mentioned an important point that was made by the Select Committee on European Legislation in HC11, Volume 7:
The Committee recalls…that its Legal Adviser's note, annexed to its Twenty-sixth Report of Session 2 1988–89 gave fair warning that the proposed role of the Community in this sector would probably extend well beyond the subject area delineated by the Government. It also notes that the Select Committee on the European Communities of the House of Lords has made a similar assessment.
In other words, the treaty—and the use likely to be made of that factor by the Commission and the Council—will go some distance. If the principle of subsidiarity in that respect were prayed in aid, I have no doubt that the matter would go to the court—the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West mentioned this—and that the powers of the Commission to propose, and of the Council to legislate, would be decided there. That would be the final word—which ties up with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield has been telling us.
The report also states:
Indeed, the Government's explanatory memorandum goes some way to recognise this likelihood in its admission that 'taken together the proposals in the action programme could have a major impact on United Kingdom Law. Significant changes in employment and social security law could be required'"—
I emphasise the word "required"—
probably by means of primary legislation'.
In other words, there would be a proposal to change the law relating to social security in regard to employment, and we would be forced by our treaty obligation to pass the necessary primary legislation.
It must be specified who will make the requirement, and on whose authority. Under the treaty, there is no single article under which qualified majority voting would give such a requirement—although the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West has mentioned what Mrs.

Papandreou is reckoned to be thinking. That refers to article 118A, which nevertheless has quite a few holes in it with regard to implemenation.
Article 100, which requires unanimity, can be used for any matter that contributes to the completion of the Common Market for which the powers are not already in the treaty. Article 235 again requires unanimity and can be used for any purpose not contained in the treaty. There may be some controversy over article 100A, which can be used for legislation to create the single market in 1992. At present it excludes matters relating to conditions of employment. At first sight, therefore, unanimity on most of those matters is maintained.
That is the position now, but discussions are going on which will culminate in intergovernmental conferences towards the end of the year and some revisions of the treaty. What national Governments will say about such revisions, which fortunately must be unanimous, remains to be seen. There is a decent argument for saying that, as there is to be a single market, the requirement for a single set of laws on industrial relations and collective bargaining should be put in place by the same method. Some may hold to that and others not, but it appears to be a possibility.
Almost at the opposite end of the scale to those big issues are public holidays. Will holidays literally meaning holy days, and Sunday observance, legislation on which has proved highly contentious in the House, come within the ambit of such legislation? I do not know the answer, but I put it forward as one of the intriguing possibilities, with which one may agree or disagree, which one day may confront us as part of the package labelled the social dimension.

Mr. James Paice: Many of the important points have been made, but I wish to endorse what my hon. Friend the Minister and other hon. Friends have said about health and safety proposals which should be dealt with on a pan-EEC basis. There are many reasons for that, but the one not yet given is competition. It is generally recognised that health and safety cost money and reduce output on many types of equipment because of working practices. Unless such regulations are common throughout the Community, competition will not be on an equal footing.
I emphasise the importance of enforcement and monitoring, particularly of health and safety measures, although they apply to many of the other proposals. We have a mix of countries with the Community, many of which have a dubious reputation on abiding by the regulations and directives issued by the Commission and approved by the various Councils of Ministers. It is commonly accepted that the French will happily agree to whatever seems politically right at the time, but subsequently may be lax on enforcement. When it comes to the Italians, anything to do with the work force is impossible to enforce because of the massive black economy, which is wholly outwith regulations. We must ensure that what is approved as a result of the action plan and the social charter leads to effective enforcement and monitoring throughout the Community, otherwise everything will be nothing less than a joke.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and the hon. Member for Newham, South


(Mr. Spearing) said that we should question which articles of the treaty of Rome should be used. I remind those hon. Gentlemen of the occasion when Madam Papandreou attended a meeting of the Select Committee on Employment, of which I was then a member. She made it abundantly clear that she intended to use article 118A, the health and safety provision, as the means to force through every aspect of the social charter in the spurious belief that one could construe anything to do with work as being to do with effective health and safety. That is wrong and I urge the Minister to make it clear that we will resist that abuse of the treaty of Rome by the Commission. I do not say that out of some innate opposition to the treaty or to the Community but because I care about the future of the Community. I should hate to see it and its institutions brought into disrepute by such blatant abuse on the part of the Commission.
The Minister has already pointed out the proposal relating to atypical forms of employment, not just part-time employment but anything other than full-time, open-ended contracts. What has happened to individual choice and responsibility? There are also proposals for a Community instrument relating to public works contracts and the introduction of a labour clause. The House debated the need for such a thing in Britain, but we have long since learnt our lesson about that. There is also a proposal for a Community instrument on consultation with industry—the old chestnut about industrial relations and workers on the board. It cannot be right for the Community to dictate the lines of such policies; it is right for business to make those decisions.
Will the proposals in the action plan achieve that which they are intended to achieve? Will they lead to more jobs and better pay and conditions for the work force? In many cases the answer will be no. Too much regulation effectively destroys competition. The single market is all about competition, but there is a direct conflict between that and the action plan. If we want the competition achieved by the single market, we cannot destroy the competitive side of the labour market with over-regulation.
A month ago I was fortunate enough to be in New Zealand where the Labour Government have completely deregulated industry. They have removed subsidies and moved out of the regulation business. They have not achieved the wonderful results enjoyed in the United Kingdom because they have not touched the labour market. It is still heavily regulated—even more so than our own under the previous Labour Government. The fundamental lesson that we must all learn is that too much regulation achieves negative results.
When will those who believe in socialist policies recognise that there is an inverse correlation between security and opportunity? The more one increases security, the more one damages opportunity. That is the case in housing and in the labour market but the Labour party fails to recognise that.
My hon. Friend the Minister has made a number of important points and it is clear that he understands the depth of feeling in the House about some of the proposals. I urge him to make absolutely sure that the benefits which

will accrue to British industry from the single market are not destroyed by the anti-competitive nature of some of the proposals.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: It is an outrage to our democracy that we are debating 47 important measures at this time of night, with a handful of Members, when we clearly have no control over what happens. We are debating important labour regulations, including the introduction of the labour contract on public works and even matters such as the recommendation of the code of good conduct and the protection of pregnancy and maternity.
Despite all this, although no one, apart from those on the Labour Front Bench, have had a good word to say about what is happening, I think that the Minister's speech tonight was one of the most important that we have heard for a long time. He clearly said that, in his and the Government's view, many of the measures will hamper job creation, hinder competition, damage competitiveness in world markets and put at risk all the benefits of the single market. The Government have said clearly that what is proposed in a good number of measures is damaging and dangerous.
The Government must ask, as they should have done a long time ago, what on earth they can do about it. The Goverment have said that we can challenge the vires. If article 100A or 118A is suggested when they should not be used, we must complain about it. But how does one complain? The Minister must be aware that the first time a directive comes before the Council, unless everyone disagrees, nothing can be done about it.
The Minister said that the Government were also planning to go to the European Court. He must be aware that in almost every instance where the powers of the Community's institutions have come up before the court, the court has found in their favour. Therefore, as the Government are now openly admitting—I was delighted at the Minister's splendid speech—what is proposed is damaging and could undermine the Conservative Government's policies and democracy. We must make up our minds soon about what to do. If the powers of selecting the treaty base are being abused, and the measures are damaging, what on earth do we do?
I believe that going to the court is a waste of time, and the Government know that. The idea of challenging the vires is pointless, and the Govenment know that. We shall have to take more seriously the idea of a twin-track Europe, and this is where we must start.

Mr. Eggar: We have had an excellent debate, as these late night, one-and-a-half hour EC debates so often are. We have covered a broad canvas, and I apologise to hon. Members because I probably will not be able to deal with the issues in the depth that they deserve. I am sure that we shall return to the so-called dimension and its implementation often in the future.
There are 40 to 50 directives or regulations that I suspect we shall consider during the next two years. Many of the issues will come up for consideration again. I hope that, before we consider them again, the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) will do his work better. The directive on collective redundancies was passed by the Commission,


and has been implemented by the House. It applies as much in this country as it does in others in the Community. But we can return to that on future occasions.
I stress again to the House that the key priority for us when we come to consider the various measures put forward under the so-called social dimension will be the ability or otherwise of those measures to add to job creation in the Community. That is not the view of just the United Kingdom Government. No less a person than the President of the European Commission, Jacques Delors, made exactly the same point in a speech to the European Parliament this January when he said:
It is no longer possible to believe that anything can be achieved on the social front without action on the economic front.
We have heard a great deal this evening from the hon. Member for Stretford about his party's new-found enthusiasm for the European Community. That was challenged by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and, as usual, from a sedentary position, by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Let us be quite clear about what the Labour party spokesmen are saying. They have not lost their enthusiasm for unnecessary regulation, bureaucracy and red tape; they have simply said that, as they cannot get it by Whitehall, they want it imposed by Brussels.
The Opposition consistently say that they believe that the ordinary British employer and employee do not know how to conduct social matters. The only people, they say, who know how to conduct them are the bureaucrats in Brussels or Whitehall. If the hon. Member for Stretford and his hon. Friends—apart from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield—get their way, the Labour party's new position on social policy will be to support qualified majority voting in the Community on all social issues.
I must ask the hon. Gentleman a few questions that flow from this new position. Do the Opposition want legally enforceable collective agreements, such as are the norm almost everywhere else in Europe? Do they want to deprive all civil servants, teachers and postal workers of the right to strike, as happens in Germany? Do they support and admire the Italian legislation that allows the police to force strikers to go back to work? Perhaps they are eager to import the requirement for a period of notice before a strike, as demanded by the law in Greece, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and France.
The fundamental question goes even further. The Labour party was founded, perfectly honourably, to represent the interests of the trade unions in the British Parliament. Is it now the party's position that in future all the major issues that are relevant to the working conditions of British employees should be decided in Brussels? That is implied in the Labour party's support for qualified majority voting——

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9978–89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Employment on 15th March 1990 relating to Commission action programme relating to the implementation of the Social Charter; and endorses the Government's view that a key

factor in ensuring that the achievement of the single market has a social dimension is to continue efforts to stimulate job creation and bring down unemployment.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant Standing Order No. 102( 5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents).

PLANT HEALTH AND MARKETING STANDARDS

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 5486/87, 5803/88 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 17th April 1989 and 7th March 1990, 4023/90 and 4024/90, relating to plant health and 4020/90, 4021/90 and 4022/90, relating to marketing of certain plants and plant propagating material; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate satisfactory arrangements to ensure effective measures against the spread of serious plant pests and diseases to the United Kingdom—[Mr. Sackville.]

Question agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

LONDON DOCKLANDS

That the London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (London Borough of Southwark) Order 1989, dated 7th June, 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Sackville.]

The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 25.

Division No. 220]
[11.57 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Day, Stephen


Alexander, Richard
Devlin, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amess, David
Dunn, Bob


Amos, Alan
Durant, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Eggar, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fallon, Michael


Ashby, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baldry, Tony
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Batiste, Spencer
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bendall, Vivian
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Freeman, Roger


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
French, Douglas


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bowis, John
Gardiner, George


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brazier, Julian
Gill, Christopher


Bright, Graham
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Buck, Sir Antony
Goodlad, Alastair


Burns, Simon
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butcher, John
Hague, William


Butler, Chris
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butterfill, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hannam, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carrington, Matthew
Harris, David


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, Christopher


Cash, William
Hayes, Jerry


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayward, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Hill, James


Colvin, Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Couchman, James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cran, James
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)






Irvine, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jack, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Janman, Tim
Ryder, Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sackville, Hon Tom


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knapman, Roger
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knowles, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knox, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lawrence, Ivan
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Steen, Anthony


Lightbown, David
Stern, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Maclean, David
Summerson, Hugo


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maples, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maude, Hon Francis
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mellor, David
Thorne, Neil


Miller, Sir Hal
Thurnham, Peter


Mills, Iain
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Trippier, David


Mitchell, Sir David
Trotter, Neville


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Viggers, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nelson, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Neubert, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Watts, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wheeler, Sir John


Norris, Steve
Widdecombe, Ann


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wiggin, Jerry


Paice, James
Wood, Timothy


Patnick, Irvine
Yeo, Tim


Pawsey, James
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Porter, David (Waveney)



Raffan, Keith
Tellers for the Ayes:


Redwood, John
Mr. Nicholas Baker and Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Renton, Rt Hon Tim





NOES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
McWilliam, John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Michael, Alun


Beggs, Roy
Nellist, Dave


Beith, A. J.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Skinner, Dennis


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Spearing, Nigel


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Dixon, Don
Wallace, James


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Haynes, Frank



Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Harry Cohen and Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


Livsey, Richard



Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

DRUG TRAFFICKING

That the draft Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (Designated Countries and Territories) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 3rd May, be approved.—[ Mr. Fallon.]

WELSH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That Dr. Kim Howells be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee, and Mr. John P. Smith be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Ray Powell, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Executive Agencies (Department of Employment)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Mr. Henry McLeish: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss executive agencies in the Department of Employment, because this evening we have debated parliamentary sovereignty, democracy and accountability, and executive agencies raise a number of similar issues in the mother of Parliaments. I shall briefly spell out some of my general concerns about the agencies and the problems of parliamentary accountability and then describe in a little more detail some of the major concerns that trouble me and my hon. Friends.
It is too easy to talk in abstract terms about accountability within this House. Executive agency status—the most recent development in the Department of Employment—raises significant parliamentary and constitutional questions. Despite discussions in the House over the past 20 or 30 years on the hiving off of Government Departments or parts of them, the Department of Employment has probably seen more changes than any other. Although the issue of executive agencies is not topical at present, it bears examination because of current activities.
My concern is not about the substantive issues, whether or not there should be executive agencies, or their particular merits or demerits. Nor do I want to discuss the details of how their financial aspects are scrutinised. Nor will my remarks relate to the wider implications of privatisation, hiving off, and creating new agencies within the totality of Government policy.
My central concerns are these. Recent developments in the Department, especially executive agency status, pose serious threats to Parliament's ability to obtain the information necessary to ensure proper public debate of specific issues. Also, I want to ensure that Parliament can effectively oversee the Department's work, especially in relation to the labour market, which is crucial to economic employment, and the client. Government documents make extensive mention of client service. Finally, proper scrutiny of public expenditure is also threatened.
It is important to highlight the context within which the Department became an executive agency. One is talking about thousands of staff and an enormous number of clients being dealt with every day. One is talking also about £1 billion of expenditure. It is a substantial part of both the civil service and the employment group.
Inadequate consideration has been given to parliamentary accountability. In a day and age when the Executive has increased power to do as it wishes within Parliament, there is also growing pressure on the parliamentary timetable—which often does not permit debates on issues of major significance. I hazard a guess that, after 11 years of the present Govenment, the Executive at times shows more than just a hint of contempt for parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
This is a time when that accountability should be strengthened, not weakened. My contention is that the activities currently being undertaken by the Department in line with Government policy could lead to a further weakening of parliamentary accountability. I feel sure that


right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House agree that that has been an important part of this Chamber and of Parliament, and I hope that the Minister will address it.
The Department is currently dealing with a range of extremely sensitive and, in my view, provocative issues. There is always the danger that behind the establishment of executive agencies which are clothed in value for money, efficiency, targeting, output and performance, there is more than a hint that the Department—the Minister grimaces—is obscuring, or failing to reveal, information that should normally be put before Parliament because of the sensitivity of certain policy changes.
I cannot let the opportunity pass without talking about the crisis in training, which the Minister of State will consider in detail following the establishment of the training and enterprise councils. The Secretary of State is a little concerned about their budget, but the Minister will do an honourable job in ensuring they have more cash to spend, because a shortage of cash lies at the root of their problems. There is wide concern about the role of the executive agency that is symptomatic of wider trends in the past, especially in relation to the Department of Employment.
I said earlier that the hiving off of Departments and sections is not new. The Fulton committee was set up in 1966 and reported in 1968. Since then, a range of issues and ideas have been debated and discussed a bit more vigorously under this Government than under previous Governments. The "next steps" report was issued prior to the 1987 election and is being implemented by the Government. Even when the Fulton report was published in June 1968, paragraph 145 referred to the point that we are discussing:
To function efficiently, large organisations, including government departments, need a structure in which units and individual members have authority that is clearly defined and responsibilities for which they can be held accountable.
There is a complex relationship between the Minister and the executive agency and between the Minister and Parliament. That is the important part of the triangle, which seems to be lacking in the consideration of the Government and the employment group. The initial concern that was flagged in discussions in the 1960s permeated much of the thinking in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
We must now look more clearly at the implications of the Government's attempts to change dramatically the nature of the civil service. I referred earlier to the abstract nature of the service. Parliamentarians like to discuss accountability, often in a vacuum. We need something tangible on which to hang the considerations that I have outlined tonight.
The Department of Employment provides an example of what has been happening and what is likely to happen. The past decade has seen the setting up of the Manpower Services Commission, which was futher developed into the Training Commission and is now the Training Agency. The Health and Safety Executive was established, as was the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. In embryonic form, we can see developments similar to the executive agency, although they have distinctive characteristics.
The Department of Employment started early in having organisations one step removed from Parliament. The executive agency is a logical step forward, although a

much more major and significant step than any of those that I have described. I think that is crucial, because the process has been continuing and because it has accelerated in the past, that we have reached a stage where the point of accountability becomes much more significant.
What about the practical issues that face the Department? I should briefly like to highlight some of the practical concerns that I have, starting with the executive agency which was established on 2 April. Curiously, on the simple point about asking parliamentary questions, we found that questions were, in the first stage, answered by the Minister, who said that they would be referred to Mr. Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive. In turn, Members received a reply from Mr. Fogden.
The confusion lying behind this process reinforces my concern that, although the issue of the substantive policy detail has been reasonably worked through within the Department of Employment, parliamentary accountability has been an afterthought. This was highlighted in the sequence of events. "Employment Service: A framework Document for the Agency" was issued for discussion. Paragraph 4.3 stated:
The Secretary of State will continue to answer questions from Members of Parliament on matters concerning the Agency, but will encourage them to contact the Chief Executive or other appropriate Agency managers direct on individual cases or operational issues".
On 8 November, speaking before the Select Committee on Employment, Mr. Mike Fogden was asked:
When you become an executive agency on 2 April, how will this limit the ability of MPs to ask questions about the operation or your service?
Mr. Fogden replied:
In no way at all.
On 8 January 1990, in the debate on the Government Trading Bill, the Minister argued that Members
will get a quicker response and be likely to resolve any follow-up points more quickly and to their satisfaction by going direct to the agency".—[Official Report, 8 January 1990; Vol. 164, c. 774.]
That was a reference to the accountability of Ministers. On 30 March, the Minister of State wrote to all Members, saying:
Ministers determine the policy objectives of the Employment Service. We remain answerable to Parliament for the Agency's activities. We will continue to answer questions on the policy aspects of the Agency's work".
We cannot get a higher authority than the Prime Minister who, responding to a question by one of my hon. Friends, said:
Ministers remain fully accountable to Parliament for all the work of their Departments. However, hon. Members may often wish in the first instance to deal directly with agency chief executives … and I would encourage them to do so."—[Official Report, 15 May 1990; Vol. 172, c. 375.]
When the agency was established on 2 April, there were no hints that constituency business would go direct to it. The crucial issue of parliamentary questions has not been highlighted, and there has been departmental incompetence.
If a Member tables a parliamentary question, the Minister responds by saying that the request has been given to the executive agency, which writes to the Member. That Member receives the answer, but what about the other Members who do not see the now personal reply, and what about the House of Commons Library, which is a tremendous source of information for many bodies, especially hon. Members? It is in a state of confusion because it does not know whether it is receiving parliamentary replies.
The matter has perhaps not been fully thought through. If it has, and we have reached this stage, there is something fundamentally wrong with the way it has been handled by Ministers and the Department of Employment. If the executive agency difficulties were the only ones, they could be tackled almost immediately because of the fairly practical problems, but what about TECs in terms of parliamentary accountability?
On Tuesday 8 May, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland about his practice of making information on local enterprise companies available. The Minister of State, Scottish Office replied:
Final decisions have yet to be taken on the range of information about training programmes which local enterprise companies will be required to collect.
It is useful to remember that the LECs in Scotland will be the sisters of the TECs in England and Wales. The Minister of State continued in his reply:
When these decisions have been taken I shall write to the hon. Member with a detailed list of information … My right hon. and learned Friend will make such information available to hon. Members provided that it is not commercial in confidence or personal information about individual trainees."—[Official Report, 8 May 1990; Vol. 172 c. 67.]
That means that commercial information is now being examined and discussed privately with TEC and LEC chairmen but is not coming before the House for discussion. Again, we shall have to await a ministerial judgment on whether hon. Members should have access to the information. That illustrates a gross contempt for the whole issue of accountability, and suggests something even more sinister. An hon. Member requiring information about a TEC or LEC may have to write to its chairman; if he requires information about 80 TECs, he may have to write to 80 chairmen. I hope that the Minister will reassure me on that in his reply.
My final question concerns non-statutory training organisations. We have had representations from the engineering industry training board about the lack of information and accountability in the hiving off of what were previously the training boards.
There are grounds for concern. I have targeted the key practical issue of how parliamentary questions concerning the executive agencies are answered, but it is time that the Minister answered our questions. I hope that the Minister will scrap the present method of responding to parliamentary questions for the executive agencies. There is nothing binding him to the present inefficient and bureaucratic method, given that the Department is still responsible, through the Minister, for the replies.
I hope, too, that we shall have an early statement on the Floor of the House in reply to our questions on the future of the executive agencies and their accountability, the future of TECs, the future of the non-statutory training organisations and a host of issues concerning the proper scrutiny of the executive. I am afraid that, at present, many hon. Members are worried by what is happening, and I hope that the Minister will take seriously the points that have been made.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): It is a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) speaking from the Back

Benches for a change. I thank him genuinely for the spirit in which he opened the debate. I know that he has had problems with responses to parliamentary questions intended for my Department and I am extremely grateful to him for the constructive way in which he raised those problems with me. I have no hesitation in saying that we have learnt lessons from our discussions with him and I am sure that that is in his interest as much as it in ours. That is the right way in which to take these matters forward. In the limited time available to me, I shall try to respond to his questions. If he feels that some matters need further discussion, I shall be happy to discuss them at a time that is convenient to him.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the employment service is only one of a number of agencies that have been established under the "next steps" initiative announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in February 1988. The aim of the initiative is well known: it is to improve the delivery of Government services to the customer and to increase value for money for the taxpayer, as well as achieving greater openness and accountability in government. The employment service is the largest agency so far and one whose activities are understandably of great concern and interest to right hon. and hon. Members.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the arrangements for dealing with questions and correspondence for the employment service are a matter of interest. But it should be borne in mind that "next steps" agencies are now established across the whole civil service. There are 31 such agencies covering about 70,000 staff, and many more are on the way. The arrangements that we have adopted for the employment service are in line with the Government's approach for agencies and they are intended to be helpful to the House in pursuing its concerns.
The Government have kept the House informed about their approach in a number of ways. The Government have explained that we are enhancing the arrangements for accountability in important ways, for example, through the publication of a framework document, the publication of agencies' objectives, and annual reports of their activities. We have also emphasised many times that Ministers remain fully accountable to Parliament for all the work of their Departments, including agencies.
However, we have set out our view that chief executives, who are accountable for the day-to-day operations of their agencies, are the best people to approach on matters for which they have delegated authority. Because of that, we have encouraged right hon. and hon. Members to deal direct with agency chief executives over inquiries about operational issues. That will include many of the matters raised with them by their constituents.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, who has responsibility for the civil service, explained this approach to the House in January during the Second Reading of the Government Trading Bill. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with the issue in a written reply and encouraged right hon. and hon. Members to approach agency chief executives on operational issues because they are best placed to respond promptly and effectively.
I should also remind the hon. Member for Fife, Central, and the House, that in many ways this is not a new or unusual procedure. On many occasions in the past Ministers have answered to the House for general policy and expenditure about a programme or service, while an


executive body has had primary responsibility for its delivery. In such cases, it is not at all unusual for right hon. and hon. Members to deal with the executive head over operational and constituency matters.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to remind the House of the arrangements for accountability in the employment service. We thought long and hard about this matter, and are determined to ensure that the new arrangements are fully effective. Right hon. and hon. Members will recall that I wrote to them on the launch of the agency, enclosing a booklet entitled "The Employment Service: The Handling of MPs Inquiries and Parliamentary Questions". That booklet was drawn up by the employment service, and approved by Ministers. It sets out the way in which hon. Members' inquiries and parliamentary questions would now be handled. I am happy to recall for the House the main elements of the system.
The main change in accountability arrangements has been in the way in which correspondence from Members is handled. In line with the general approach that I have already outlined, hon. Members are now encouraged to take up queries and complaints on operational matters with the agency chief executive. Under the new arrangements for correspondence, hon. Members will find that they will get a quicker response to their inquiries and to any follow-up points that they may wish to pursue. That is certainly one of the strongest elements of the "next steps" approach and I would like to think that when hon. Members have become accustomed to this system they will prefer to approach the agency's local managers or chief executive rather than come direct to Ministers on operational matters.
As parliamentary questions caused concern to the hon. Member for Fife, Central, perhaps I could explain how the new system will operate. When a question is tabled, the Minister decides whether it is a strategic, resource or operational matter. The decision is then taken by Ministers whether the parliamentary question will be answered by Ministers substantively or referred to the agency for reply.
If Ministers decide that the question is suitable for a response by the chief executive, a reply is sent to the right hon. or hon. Member explaining what has been done. The agency chief executive then aims to send a full reply as soon as possible. Very often that will occur on the same day as the reply from the Minister. As the hon. Gentleman now knows, the chief executive will offer to place a copy of the reply in the Library if the hon. Member so wishes.

Mr. McLeish: Why has that not happened?

Mr. Eggar: If the hon. Gentleman says that that has not yet been done, I am surprised. However, I assure him that my Department's policy is that the hon. Member concerned will be asked specifically whether he wishes a copy of the reply to be placed in the Library. We have adopted that practice because we recognise that many matters of a constituency or personal nature will be of interest only to specific Members and therefore the procedure should not be automatic.
I hope that hon. Members can appreciate how much more quickly they can get operational information from the chief executive rather than through approaching Ministers via the House. The system is designed to ensure that hon. Members deal direct with the person—be it a

Minister on policy matters, the chief executive, or the local manager—who is best placed to answer on the matter in hand that concerns the hon. Member. Above all, Ministers will continue to be responsible to Parliament for the employment service and will answer to hon. Members on any issue in debates relating to the employment service.
Ministers will also continue to reply to correspondence from hon. Members on strategic policy and overall resource allocation. Furthermore, we undertake to answer letters from any hon. Member who feels that he or she has not had a satisfactory answer from the employment service on operational issues.
The employment service will continue to be subject to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. The permanent secretary will consult the chief executive about replies to complaints going through the Parliamentary Commissioner.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the arrangements that have been put in place for handling hon. Members' inquiries and parliamentary questions about TECs. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State wrote to hon. Members on 2 April, enclosing a booklet explaining that in detail.
TECs, of course, are not "next steps" agencies, but private companies operating under contract to deliver the Government's training and enterprise programmes. Thus Ministers are able to set them clear objectives and targets while allowing them considerable flexibility in how they achieve those objectives and targets—for example, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, in choice of training providers. That will enable TECs to provide programmes in the most cost-effective manner and to tailor them to meet local needs. I am sure that the House welcomes that development.
Ministers will continue to answer to the House on overall training and enterprise policies, for the public funds made available to TECs, and, of course, for the contracts that govern the relationship between the Government and TECs.
The main change in accountability arrangements is that all correspondence sent to Ministers on matters that fall within the flexibilities allowed for TECs will be referred to them to answer. TECs are private companies, and it is right that they should answer on the matters that are under their discretion.
I stress to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that we are always available and willing to explain how the Employment Department group operates. To that end, I shall shortly be contacting hon. Members inviting them to a series of presentations and discussions on the workings of the Employment Department. We hope that those presentations will help right hon. and hon. Members better to appreciate the implications of the changes that we are setting in hand. We shall be asking local managers to explain how hon. Members can tap into their local Employment Department group network for advice and help for their constituents. We shall also be making available individual briefing packs containing information about the Department, its activities and contact points in hon. Members' own constituencies.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will take this opportunity to become better acquainted with the "delivery end" of the Department of Employment. We are determined to improve the quality of service that we offer, not only to our many clients but to hon. Members who


want to appreciate the way in which we are delivering services and what we can do to help them and their constituents.
I hope that I have been able to explain clearly to the House what the new arrangements are. All the

developments are part of a move towards increased effectiveness and ensuring continued accountability to this House.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to One o'clock.